If You Want To Ban Guns, Just Say So

Posted: June 11, 2014 | Author: Pundit Planet | Filed under: Self Defense, Think Tank, U.S. News, White House | Tags: Australia, Barack Obama, Civil Rights, David Harsanyi, Federalist, Gun Confiscation, Gun control, Gun politics in the United States, Mass murder, Obama, Second Amendment, Tumblr |2 Comments

Why is Obama bringing up Australian gun control laws?

For The Federalist, David Harsanyi writes: While answering a few questions on Tumblr this week, President Obama informed participants that “our levels of gun violence are off the charts.” He claimed that it was incomprehensible that congress hadn’t reacted to overwhelming public opinion and passed legislation to expand gun background checks, adding that nations like Australia had long ago enacted sensible gun control laws to stop mass shootings:

“Couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting, similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not doing it, we’re not seeing that again, and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since.”

obama-exhaust

This isn’t the first time Obama has brought up Australian gun control laws. He did so after the Navy Yard DC shooting, as well. Actually, on the left, Australian laws are frequently cited as a way to limit shooting rampages — perhaps get rid of them altogether. A few years ago, Nicholas Kristof, after mischaracterizing the law, recommended that it should be the “road map” for United States policy.

[Order David Harsanyi‘s book “Obama’s Four Horsemen: The Disasters Unleashed by Obama’s Reelection“ from Amazon.com]

What are they talking about here? Longer wait times? Banning “assault weapons”? Not really. In 1996, after a ghastly massacre at Port Arthur, the Australian government passed firearms regulations that banned ownership of almost all semiautomatic weapons, all self-loading rifles and shotguns, and instituted strict restrictions on all sale of ammunition for the weapons.

[Check out another David Harsanyi book “The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy”, also available at Amazon.com]

A person can own a gun if they can demonstrate to the state that he has a “genuine reason” for having one – and “self-defense” is not considered a legitimate basis for ownership. Australia proceeded to run a buyback program that lasted nearly a year, in which time the government ended up paying citizens for 640,000 prohibited firearms. It was, in other words, a massive confiscation of guns.

You may believe this sounds like a constructive idea. A person doesn’t have to live in a survivalist bunker to understand that a sizable number of Americans are perplexed or appalled by the idea of average Americans walking into a store and buying a Glock or a shotgun. I know lots of these people. So why do we keep acting like we’re engaged in debate about waiting periods, magazine size limits, gun-free zones, or background checks, when nearly every liberal pundit that takes up the gun issue either attacks individual gun ownership as some misunderstood 18thcentury gibberish or laments the nihilistic “gun culture” they imagine exists in this country. This is a dispute about the prevalence of guns in American society, not the newest incrementalist gun-control scheme…(read more)

Source: The Federalist