Do You REALLY Want Federal Gun Control Intervention? Well, Here’s an Idea for You

Image by WikimediaImages from Pixabay

Word is that the Senate has the necessary votes for federal gun control legislation designed to, among other things, pressure states into instituting “red flag” laws. These measures are controversial because they involve suspending a person’s rights (i.e., seizing his weapons) without due process. Wherever you stand on them and federal firearms laws in principle, however, a simple fact is under-emphasized in this debate: Laws mean little if not enforced.

What’s more, they’re actually instruments of evil if only enforced to the degree where good people will comply.

Here’s another fact: Corresponding to the general unwillingness among left-wing district attorneys to punish criminals (who aren’t also political opponents), these officials, though claiming firearms are a plague, aren’t punishing most gun crimes. Odd, huh?

An archetypical example is Philadelphia D.A. Larry Krasner. His office withdrew or dismissed 65 percent of gun charges last year, up from 17 percent in 2015. This, along with his characteristic reluctance to hold miscreants to account, explains why the “City of Brotherly Love” had 559 murders in 2021 — an all time record. And, again, his misfeasance reflects that of left-wing prosecutors nationwide.

Thus, if there must be federal gun-oriented intervention (which I’m against), it’s obvious what it should be:

Make localities’ and/or states’ receipt of federal funds contingent upon their adequate enforcement of violent-crime laws — in particular, gun laws.

There you have it. Are you listening, Mitch McConnell?

Unlike what’s currently being proposed, this measure actually would make a difference. It’s not radical within the context of today’s governmental norms, either. After all, the current “bipartisan” gun bill provides “incentives” for states to implement red-flag laws; even more to the point, the Biden administration is apparently threatening to withhold school lunch money from districts that don’t effect the pseudo-elites’ MUSS (Made-up Sexual Status, aka “transgender”) agenda. Of course, using federal-funding retention as cudgel with which to impose Washington’s will has long been status quo.

I’ll reiterate that I don’t believe in such strong-arm tactics; in fact, the central government is meant to be a mere agent of the states and should get precious little tax money. But if the feds are going to call the tune with their pay-the-piper power, what better cause than compelling feckless localities to enforce the laws that really matter and save lives?

Earlier this month, more than 170 “big city mayors” met in Reno, Nevada, to kvetch about how they “fear sweeping gun limits are out of reach,” as The New York Times put it. What misdirection.

What deflection.

What nerve.

What phonies.

Crime isn’t skyrocketing nationwide because firearm laws have changed (they haven’t), but because the law-enforcers have changed.

Enforcement of local laws makes far more sense than any one-size-fits-all policy, too, as crime is not an evenly distributed phenomenon. Consider that more than half of 2016’s murders occurred in just certain parts of two percent of our land’s counties, and 68 percent of the homicides were committed in only small pockets of five percent of the counties.

Oh, these would be exclusively, or almost all, Democrat areas.

In contrast and on average, “73 percent of counties in any given year had zero murders from 1977 to 2000,” reported Fox News in 2017. (These would generally be GOP areas.)

In other words, we don’t have a “gun problem.”

We have a Democrat population/governance problem.

What’s so disgusting about enacting more laws but not strictly enforcing those on the books, especially the important ones, is that only good people are affected. They tend to follow laws even when enforcement is lax and punishment for violation is minimal; miscreants won’t without the threat of Draconian measures.

So ponder the vicious circle here:

  • You don’t enforce just laws.
  • Crime consequently proliferates.
  • There’s then a drumbeat for more laws, which take away good people’s freedom but also won’t be enforced on evildoers.
  • Crime then rises further leading to a call for even more laws, and, well….

You get the idea. Wash, rinse, repeat — and soon few freedoms remain. Of course, were you conspiracy minded (perish the thought), you might fancy this the whole point of this seemingly pointless exercise.

As for you politicians, federal and otherwise, focus on enforcing existing laws or forever hold your peace. ’Cause with the way your pet criminals are running wild, a good citizen certainly has to hold his piece.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on MeWe, Gettr or Parler, or log on to SelwynDuke.com

If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN

Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: AFNN_USA

 

 

1 thought on “Do You REALLY Want Federal Gun Control Intervention? Well, Here’s an Idea for You”

  1. I can’t think of one good thing that what Mitch McConnell now supports, will be for anyone.
    Everything in the supposed agreement that the Democrats and the Republicans seem to be thinking is beneficial is either unconstitutional or just another way for the RINOs and the Democrats to say that they “Did something” when all they will achieve is to spend more money, and no benefit happens.

    The idea that Congress is now to be used to assert influence on the states to pass gun control is just worthy of a war. But it is just another thing to add to that list. It is an abuse of raw power and only intended as an appearance.

    Sure, mental health is a condition that is part of the problem concerning violence. I want to know how empowering psychologist, psychiatrists and social workers is going to have a positive impact, when most in that area of expertize are ones who are very culpable concerning society’s woes. I’m not pro or anti mental health, but I am anti kookery, which is where mental health has been heading for decades.
    This is the kind of crap we get into when we use broad statements explaining societal problems when it is a very simple problem, but very difficult to ever achieve with all the forces aligned against the family, the economy, the drug problem and this crap, known as wokeism and those stupid LGBTQXYZ buffoons.

    This has and will continue to be a cultural problem, and there is no damned psychiatrist or social worker who can move that needle until the day comes when they promote getting back to a version of normalcy with the family.

    Tell that to that idiot Mitch McConnell!

    Reply

Leave a Comment