Jeff Knox - Part 2

All I Wanted for Christmas was Fewer Stupid Gun Laws

Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 10:24 AM

By Jeff Knox

Polish P64 Pistol

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- I wasn’t among the estimated 2 million or so people who found a gun under the tree this Christmas, not because I didn’t want one or because my wife doesn’t love me, but because of stupid gun laws and an aversion to spending extra money to satisfy those stupid gun laws.

I’m frugal by nature and that inclination has gotten more pronounced with the current economy and future uncertainties.

But this Christmas my friends at J&G Sales made me an offer I didn’t think I could refuse. They lowered the price on their P64 pistols to just $149.95!

The P64 is a Polish knock-off of the famed Walther PPK carried by James Bond, but with a little more power. I just had to have one and my wife agreed so it was settled. That’s when the stupid gun laws kicked in.

In order to take advantage of the great deal from my friends in Prescott, I had to either drive up there or call and have the gun shipped to a dealer closer to my home in the Phoenix area. Driving up to Prescott takes about 2 and a half hours each way and would burn close to $50 worth of gas. Having the gun shipped down to a local dealer would add a $22 shipping charge plus a $35 transfer fee from my local dealer. Either way I would have to fill out paperwork and get approved through the NICS “instant” background check system. My sister, who lives in Prescott, could have gone down to J&G and picked up the gun for me except that’s illegal. If she were buying the gun for me as a gift, that would be OK, but if she were to buy it on my behalf or with the intention of selling it to me, that would be considered a “straw purchase” and she could face 5 years and $50,000 in penalties.

There was simply no way that I was going to be able to buy that gun without incurring $50 to $75 in additional costs. While that’s not a whole lot of money, it is more than a third of the price of the gun itself and it put the total cost over what I was willing to pay. In the end, I set the money aside in hopes that I’ll be able to cut a deal the next time I’m up in Prescott, or find some other bargain here locally.

The really frustrating thing about this story is knowing that the laws which kept me from buying this gun don’t keep criminals from getting the guns they use.

There were some 16 million NICS checks conducted in 2011 at a direct cost of more than a Billion dollars. That Billion dollars comes out of your paycheck and the value received for it is highly questionable. There has never been a single study indicating that the background check system has reduced violent crime. Still, a NICS checks is required every time I buy a gun from a dealer. It doesn’t matter how many guns I already own or how many I have recently purchased. Each time I wish to add to my collection I am placed under suspicion and investigated anew.

Couldn’t those Billions have been used to fund proven, effective crime-fighting programs or to keep serious criminals behind bars longer?

Gun laws – no matter how “common sense” they seem to be – don’t work because they simply don’t apply to criminals. Criminals get their guns through criminal means – by stealing them or getting them through straw purchasers. They find ways around the laws which are enforced against the rest of us. Certainly I agree that we should make an effort to keep guns away from criminals and crazy people, but at what cost and to what effect? Does it make sense to bind the hands of everyone in the vain hope of binding the hands of the criminals and crazies? Doesn’t it make more sense to literally bind – incarcerate – those who are too dangerous to be trusted with guns? If a person is known to be too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, what’s he doing driving down my street, hanging out at the grocery where my wife shops, or sitting in the park where my grandson plays? And why is the government messing up my Christmas, spending my money, and often disarming me in the name of protecting me from this guy that shouldn’t be on the streets in the first place?

Gun Control: Bah humbug! Happy New Year.

About:
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition is a project of Neal Knox Associates, Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org

Tags: Background Checks, Firearms Coalition, Gun Voters, Jeff Knox, NICS, Straw Purchases

Filed under: Gun Rights News, Shooting Industry News by Ammoland No Comments »

Presidential Hopefuls are Human

Sunday, January 15th, 2012 at 10:16 AM

By Jeff Knox

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- With less than 11 months until Americans go to the polls to elect the next President, and early Primaries and Caucuses underway, the prospects for “Hope and Change” are not looking promising.

Certainly plenty of promises are being made, but those promises, and the politicians making them, are long on brag and woefully short on substance or credibility.

While I represent a single-issue organization and use the right to arms as a primary litmus test of any politician’s qualifications, I also look at broader issues beginning with understanding and support for the rest of the Constitution, understanding of liberty-based economics, and their ability to effectively express their understanding and support of these things in such a way as to engender confidence and garner support from the voting public. Mr. Obama has proven that his qualifications in that regard are limited to saying things that elicit support from certain segments of the population (most notably mass media), but virtually all of his policy positions and personal values are in conflict with my own beliefs and the vision of our founding fathers. Unfortunately, the choices on the Republican side fall seriously short as well.

My brother and close collaborator, Chris Knox, and I have been hashing through the candidates, their philosophies and histories, and likely election scenarios for months now in hopes of finding a candidate to whom we can, in good conscience, offer our endorsement. There isn’t one. Every candidate we have examined has glaring flaws in their records or beliefs which we simply cannot endorse.

It was probably Mark Twain or Will Rogers who observed that the office of President is too important to ever give to someone who actually wants the job. The truth of that sentiment can be readily recognized when you look at the candidates and evaluate their motives for running. Seeking the office requires advanced narcissism or an almost messianic level of commitment to a philosophy or agenda – or both. A review of the current crop of candidates reveals a lot of narcissism and very little commitment to ideals. There is much more wanting to be as opposed to wanting to do.

Barack Obama is the personification of an agenda-driven narcissist. In his case the narcissism is dominant and the agenda is in direct opposition to the philosophy of the founders. Anyone who cares about the Second Amendment and the Constitution at all must reject him and all he stands for. While some gun owners and conservatives, frustrated by the ‘bigger government – less freedom’ activities of the Bush administration, cast a hopeful, and perhaps excusable, vote for Obama in 2008, Obama’s performance over the past 3 years has proven beyond all doubt that those hopeful votes were a tragic mistake, and that only political reality in Congress has kept him from completely gutting the Second Amendment and more of the Constitution.

Among the Republican candidates we see plenty of narcissism with very little principled commitment to constitutional ideals. Gingrich, Romney, and Perry, while they display some differences on policy matters, are, above all, political animals running to be President and have demonstrated a willingness to shift their policies and agenda as needed to advance their political ambitions. Bachman and Santorum likewise show strong narcissistic aspirations, but with a bit more consistency regarding “social conservative” issues. Their dedication to those issues however, suggest a willingness to place the Constitution behind their own religious and social preferences – acceptable on a personal level, but not in an official capacity.

Of all of the candidates, the only one who could be characterized as being agenda-driven for restoration of the Founders’ Constitutional principles, and with personal ambition being a secondary, or even tertiary issue, is Ron Paul. Paul has a long and consistent record of unwavering support for, and defense of, the Second Amendment and the Constitution. The problem with Paul however, is that his agenda is perceived as too aggressive and there is significant doubt as to his ability to be able to put all of the pieces together to make it work. A president has only limited power and even if Paul exercised that power to its utmost, there is much to his agenda that would require support from the Congress – support that he simply would not get. As President, Paul would face constant resistance and undermining from not only Democrats, but from Republicans as well, along with opposition from the media and, perhaps most significantly, federal bureaucrats. Another challenge for Paul would be finding qualified people to serve in his cabinet who agree with his agenda and have the knowledge and experience necessary to be effective.

The thought of an administration full of libertarian college professors and students with no government experience does not inspire confidence.

In the end, we find that all of the candidates are, in fact, human, possessing all of the foibles and frailties of the rest of us. What history has shown us is that presidential success or failure is extremely unpredictable. Much depends on the people with whom a president surrounds himself, who he listens to, and what external events he is faced with. Presidents either rise to the challenges of the office or they don’t. The only way to find out is to put them in the position and see what happens.

For those of us with specific agendas of our own, this means that the best we can do or hope for is to elicit promises and assurances from the candidates and then do our best to hold them to those commitments.

In 2012, one thing we know for sure is that our nation is at a tipping point and that another four years of Barack Obama and his cronies will be far worse than anything we could expect from any of the Republican challengers. While Chris and I have some preferences among the pack, we are not impressed with any of them enough to offer an endorsement in the Primaries. We will continue to push all of the candidates to make specific promises regarding the Second Amendment, the Constitution, and the appointment of judges and justices who have so much impact on those, and when a nominee is finally determined, we will do our best to get them elected.