18guns2 cityroom blog480 300x199Progressives and liberals continue their assault on the second amendment by proposing the first step in what will ultimately enable them to confiscate your guns. Massachusetts State Representative David Linsky has filed a new bill that would, among other things, force gun owners to undergo mental health background checks, acquire liability insurance, pay an additional 25% tax on all forms of ammunition, and require firearms categorized as assault weapons to be stored outside of their homes and only at “government approved storage depots.” That’s right, you must store your firearms with government approved and controlled facilities.

Linsky says, “This bill is a comprehensive effort to reduce all types of gun violence – murders, intentional shootings, accidental shootings and suicides. There is not one solution to reducing gun violence – we can’t eliminate it – but there are a lot of common-sense steps that we can take to significantly reduce the everyday tragedy of gun violence and deaths.” Really!

Again, there are obvious or trivial problems with this argument, ones that I know most of you see these fallacies (see ALERT: Be aware of latest argument Obama is using to restrict your Second Amendment rights). So just for completeness, here they are:

  1. 25% tax on ammunition – just how would this have prevented the Sandy Brooks shooting. Can any liberal or progressive scientifically demonstrate how raising taxes on lawful products would reduce the violence from unlawful activities? Please send me the study.
  2. Acquire Liability Insurance – The requirement to show proof of insurance for the possession of a firearm would seem, on the surface, to a reasonable law. Let’s face it, who can argue with, as Linsky puts it, “common sense requirement.” But this is a constitutional right and for what other rights do we require liability insurance to exercise. For example, the first amendment right to free speech. More people have been killed by the world of a few and any other right. Should we require everybody to have “free speech liability insurance?”
  3. Mental Health Background Checks – This is one area that few would argue against. But the issue how will they implement it and to what degree will the government have the right to looking into your private health records.
  4. Reduction of Intentional & Accidental Shooting – Nationally, less than 2% of gun crimes involve assault weapons. In Chicago, more than 500 people where killed by handgun shot by criminals. Just how will restraining the lawful access to “assault weapons” by law abiding citizens prevent these crimes?

The argument I want you all to really think about is again a lot more subtle, one that goes to the heart of why they want to use plausible reasoning to trick you into non-action. Linsky wants you to store your firearms in government approved storage depots. Why? Think about it for a moment…. What is the principle behind this requirement? That’s right, CONTROL.

The government wants to be in the position to control your lawful access to your constitutional right to own and use firearms. By requiring you to merely store your firearms with them as a first step, they have easy access to prevent you from taking your firearms as an easy next step. What the government gives, they can take away.

Leave a Reply