“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” – Mahatma Gandhi

Monday, May 4, 2009

Global gun control?

Saturday our local probate judge attended our regular Republican monthly breakfast. I was chatting with her when someone came up and said told her wanted to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The judge said, with a chuckle, to get in line, they were being overwhelmed with requests. She figured that pretty much everyone in our county must have a permit or be in line to get one.

Our county has one of the lowest crime rates in the state. We have tough law enforcement. We have tough judges. No hand-holding here... crooks and druggies know they're going away if caught here. In fact, surrounding counties work with law enforcement to lure drug dealers into our county for busts because they know they'll get their butts kicked.

Crime is increasing in the county though. I suppose it's because we have a higher per capita income and that's attractive to crooks. They all figure they're going to be able to get away with whatever crime they want to commit, don't they?

Even with the rising crime rate, we're still seeing less than the rest of the state. I rather like living here, although I could live without that ticket I received recently .

One of the reasons people are lining up for gun permits, not just concealed weapon permits, is they see bad times coming on a number of fronts. The current crew would take away every law abiding citizen's guns if they could. They'd then wonder why the crime rate sky-rocketed. Although, maybe they're looking for excuses for marshal law. Who knows.

Many are reasoning that they'd better get their guns now while they can, just in case Obama and friends are successful in banning guns. I would bet the number of reported stolen guns will probably be on the rise in the near future, too, as people figure out that there's a record of gun ownership and their guns can be confiscated.

Another reason people are wanting to get their guns now is they know crime is increasing. Whether it's from the downturn in the economy or the wimpy judges we're seeing or the new give everyone a break mentality that's permeating our society, many see that things aren't going to get better in the crime arena. Best to have your own protection.

You can't love a criminal or a sociopath into not shooting when they're standing in front of you with their hand on the trigger of a gun. You sure can stop them if you are fast enough with your own gun or have one at the ready when they break down your door.

If you think an America without guns for law-abiding citizens would be bad, how about a world without legal guns? One thing that I never hear anyone explain is how they're going to take guns away from criminals. Even if we stopped manufacturing guns around the world legally, criminals are going to find a way to stockpile those already in existence, and then have factories to make their own.

Legal Advisor Nominee Advocates Global Gun Control

Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Harold Koh, a former Dean of the Yale Law School, to be Legal Advisor to the State Department. One of the many concerns with Koh is his belief that international organizations should be empowered to regulate the Second Amendment right to own a firearm.

On April 2, 2002, Koh gave a speech to the Fordham University School of Law titled “A World Drowning in Guns” where he mapped out his vision of global gun control. Koh advocated an international “marking and tracing regime.” He complained that “the United States is now the major supplier of small arms in the world, yet the United States and its allies do not trace their newly manufactured weapons in any consistent way.” Koh advocated a U.N.-governed regime to force the U.S. “to submit information about their small arms production.”

1 comment:

lonestar said...

That is scary. We really need to withdraw from the U.N. in my opinion. I thought it was ironic when Obama, in his speech about SCOTUS (where he showed either complete ignorance or disregard for the actual role of the SCOTUS) he mentioned something to the effect of people being able to feel safe in their own homes. Yet he wants to take everyone's guns away. Seems a little contradictory there... if he was really interested in people feeling safe, which comes from being able to defend oneself and one's family, he wouldn't oppose lawful gun ownership.