By David Codrea
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “Once again America grieves over a senseless tragedy caused by a mentally deranged dangerous person committing a horrible multiple murder with the use of a firearm,” the Independent Firearm Owners Association ( IFoA ) declared Thursday in a media statement prepared in response to the Roanoke murders.
“Once again the Pavlovian reaction by many politicians and their media cohorts is to focus on more ‘gun control.”
True enough. Add to that no shortage of rage directed at those who defend the right to keep and bear arms accompanied by frenzied opportunistic blood dancing and demands that “we do something,” unspecified, naturally, and it looks like it’s once more time for gun owners to hold fast and not give an inch.
Except the gun group perceives changes to firearms laws can be made. And it apparently assumes we on the “shall not be infringed” end of the spectrum are going to be OK with that.
“We at the ‘IFoA’ support useful ‘gun control’ legislation calculated to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, unsupervised juveniles and dangerously confused, mentally ill individuals,” the statement continues.
“We vigorously oppose ‘feel good,’ uninformed, ‘do something’ proposals that are irrelevant to the problems we face or worse, interfere with the increasingly important, constitutionally protected rights of hundreds of millions of Americans who commit no crimes, never misuse guns, and have every moral, legal and practical reason to own and use firearms for protection, sport, hunting or collecting.”
The statement and its follow-on seem contradictory. What “gun control” is “useful” and how does that square with a definitive study in the Harvard University Journal of Law & Public Policy by criminologist and constitutional lawyer Don B. Kates, and criminologist and professor Gary Mauser.
“In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents,” Kates and Mauser explain.
“The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of then‐extant studies.”
Does IFoA have something new and definitive they wish to throw into the mix? And why is “defense of freedom” not even mentioned alongside the other “reason[s] to own and use firearms”?
IFoA then refers us to a statement it put out in 2013, when the group’s “president, Richard Feldman, met at the White House with Vice President Biden after the Newtown massacre,” and asks “what’s changed?’
Nothing as far as end game goals of the antis and attempts to treat with them are concerned.
“Let’s agree upon a return to public civility,” is the first recommendation. “We are all concerned Americans and we must be considerate of each other and address these issues in a rational and adult fashion.”
Yes and no.
There’s a time and a place for courtesy, but there is no one-size-fits all tactic for everyone to follow. Respect is something that’s earned. Ignorant bigots hurling misplaced blame and venomous insults merit no courtesy. And the ones who know full well what they’re doing – the professional rights rapists –are simply evil, and deserve to be called what they are.
This isn’t a debating society. The enemies of liberty – and make no mistake, that’s what they are – want nothing short of a government monopoly of violence. They’re willing, and then some, to deploy the power of the state to enforce their will, and to crush anyone who opposes them, using the full continuum of armed force options.
Why do you think they want our guns so badly?
Next time, let’s take a detailed look at IFoA’s “useful gun control” recommendations. Do you think they just might be debatable?
I do.
Also see:
- Part Two: Rotten Olive Branch Offered after Roanoke Murders
- Part Three: Preemptive Surrender on Guns as Futile as Appeasement
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and also posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
When a white guy is racist and kills several innocent black people to start a race war = the Confederate Flag and streets named after Confederate Generals are to blame and must be banned
When a gay black obama supporter with the gay pride flag who wants to start a race war = we need to talk about banning guns
Thanks, David! Glad you’re on Ammoland!
Gun control suggestions are always debatable. My gun ownership is NOT, by my decree. There may be armed resistance, but there will be no debate.
When the BLM, CPUSA , New Black Panthers and the assortment of other Black Radical Violence Sociopaths are reeled in , prosecuted and jailed for there Doemestic Terrorism and Threats, perhaps i’ll listen. But since the WH , DoJ and Media not only Directly help them they Indirectly Help them. WH , DoJ and Media are Unindicted Coconspiritors in the Looting, Murder of LE and Domestic Terrorism being brought upon Law Abiding Citizens of all color. Lest we also not forget the Rampaging Illegals, Raping , Murdering and Stealing. Again facilitated , helped and Directly supported by WH , DoJ… Read more »
“We at the ‘IFoA’ support useful ‘gun control’ legislation calculated to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, unsupervised juveniles and dangerously confused, mentally ill individuals,” the statement continues. Let’s be charitable. We all “support” keeping guns out the hands of thugs and loonies, just like we all “support” world peace short of global totalitarianism. Maybe these guys just haven’t thought the problem through far enough to realize that they are equaly impossible goals, and that there is real danger in creating legislation that pretends to address one problem, and not only fails, but ends up creating many… Read more »
Flanagan wasn’t a cold blooded racist killer. he was just ‘Dangerously confused”. Check. Definitions, and who controls them are the game in it’s entirety. The definitions as to what constitutes a mental illness are highly malleable, beginning with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association. Hardly a pro gun rights organization, whos list of mental illnesses is long, and getting longer with each edition. But that doesn’t end it. It can go down to an opinion from a single MD. Perhaps even a single psych nurse. Every veteran becomes suspect. Everyone who… Read more »
“Mental illness” is a backdoor policy. The DSM 5, under the pressure of the Federal government, has conveniently expanded the definitions of “illnesses”. EVERYONE who isn’t a friggin’ robot will eventually be labeled “borderline” mentally ill….NOBODY will qualify for firearm ownership under this “common sense” policy. I’m guessing there’s a whole lot of other rights you won’t qualify for either. Have you ever…. ….yelled at someone? …..been depressed about your situation? ……gotten in a fight? …..broken the law? ……had too much of a mind influencing substance? …..made a stupid, possibly impulsive decision? ……criticized your teacher, boss, or goverment? ALL would… Read more »
“…shall not be infringed.”
I, for one, do not want to see firearms in the hands of violent felons. I seriously doubt you do.
This is a common-sense restriction; “infringement” if you will.
No right is absolute.
All rights are absolute. That’s what makes them “rights” and not “privileges”. And your use of the term “common-sense” betrays you as a leftist.
‘You cannot legislate against a madman’ – Winston Churchill.
A look at their board of directors shows ex-cops, politicians, and lawyers. Not exactly a grassroots group.
The same thing could be said about the board of directors of the NRA. And your point is?
Well… Considering that the NRA has killed constitutional carry bills (look up NH) and helped write gun bans (Columbus, OH ‘assault weapons’ ban in the ’90s), you may have made my point.
The NRA _needs_ ‘gun control’ for continued fund raising.
Louis Farakahn and BLM calls for murder are met with SILENCE from the White House ! Silence is approval it seems.
You are correct.
Silence is not approval, it is a refusal to say something.
While we can *say* that Obama’s silence is approval, it can be said in other cases that it’s disapproval.
What we can say is that his silence is certainly understandable, given his own oft-displayed racism; it is a desire on his part to not say anything that would possibly offend his black brothers.