Anatomy of a Gun-Controller - The Anti Net - Anti Gun & Gun Control Info on Gunnery Network

Once again, gun-control activists have been shot down by the courts – this time by the California Supremes – which ruled earlier this week in a 5-1 decision that firearms manufacturers cannot be held legally responsible for the criminal misuse of their product.

This is just the latest in a string of defeats for the gun-banners.

Lawsuits have been filed by at least 33 cities and counties and by the state of New York, charging manufacturers with unsafe gun design, negligent distribution and deceptive marketing and advertising. And although the legal theories differ to some degree, according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.), "the cities’ suits against the gun industry are based, in part, upon the successful efforts of states to recover damages against the tobacco industry.”

But the nation’s courts aren't buying it.

In 1999, an Ohio state court dismissed the City of Cincinnati’s suit, saying the city could not sue firearms manufacturers to recover its municipal costs incurred in connection with criminal and accidental shootings. To rule otherwise, the court said, “would open a Pandora’s box. …”
“For example, the city could sue the manufacturers of matches for arson, or automobile manufacturers for traffic accidents, or breweries for drunk driving,” said the court. The ruling was upheld by a state appellate court Aug. 11, 2000.
In September 2000, an Illinois judge dismissed the city of Chicago’s gun-industry suit. Chicago joined Bridgeport, Conn., Miami, Fla., and Cincinnati in other suits that had been dismissed.
In December 2000, a New Jersey federal court judge dismissed a suit against the industry filed by Camden County. On Dec. 20, a federal judge then threw out the city of Philadelphia’s suit as well.
In January of this year, a county judge declared Gary, Ind.’s suit null and void. An appeal also failed.
In February, a state appellate court rejected a suit filed by Miami-Dade County.
By April, the Louisiana Supreme Court threw out New Orleans’ suit against gun-makers – an important ruling, considering the city’s case was a landmark filing. Also in April, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that shooting victims had no legal standing to sue gun-makers “for the criminal misuse of a non-defective item.”

What is it about gun-controllers that makes them so seemingly oblivious to the Constitution, history, human nature and common sense? Please understand: This ability on their part to ignore mountains of evidence is not new.

Consider this:

It's not widely known that President Jimmy Carter and his inner circle, intent on pushing through comprehensive new federal gun-control legislation during the late '70s, determined that the best way to grease the congressional skids would be to have a massive scientific study conducted which, in the end, would proclaim that gun control laws were effective in reducing crime.

So the Carter folks handed out a major gun-control research grant to University of Massachusetts sociology Professor James D. Wright and his colleagues Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly. They spent four years and lots of taxpayer dollars to produce the most comprehensive, critical study of gun control ever undertaken. In 1981, they published the results of their research – an exhaustive, three-volume work entitled, "Under the Gun."

There was only one problem.

Their findings, summarized starkly by co-author Wright, were that "Gun control laws do not reduce crime."

"When Wright, Rossi, and Daly produced their report for the National Institute of Justice, they delivered a document quite different from the one they had expected to write," explained David Kopel, research director of the Colorado-based Independence Institute. "Carefully reviewing all existing research to date, the three scholars found no persuasive scholarly evidence that America's 20,000 gun control laws had reduced criminal violence."

Among their many findings:

The landmark federal Gun Control Act of 1968, banning most interstate gun sales, had no discernible impact on the criminal acquisition of guns from other states.
Detroit's law providing mandatory sentences for felonies committed with a gun was found to have no effect on gun-crime patterns.
Washington, D.C.'s 1977 ban on the ownership of handguns (except those already registered in the District) was not linked to any reduction in gun crime in the nation's capital.
Polls claiming to show that a large majority of the population favored "more gun control" were debunked as being the product of biased questions, and of the fact that most people have no idea how strict gun laws already are.

"As the scholars frankly admitted, they had started out their research as gun-control advocates," said Kopel, "and had been forced to change their minds by a careful review of the evidence."

Fast-forward to today, as gun-controllers' efforts metastasize into myriad new, sometimes bizarre strategies in a desperate attempt to advance their agenda: attempts to have firearms classified legally as a "health risk" so as to bring them under the regulatory purview of the FDA, CDC and other bureaucracies; gun buyback programs; United Nations initiatives to reduce small arms around the world. And of course there are the outrageous lawsuits brought – at your expense – by dozens of municipalities attempting to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the crimes committed with their products.

The bottom line: Those intent on restricting or eliminating firearms still aren't paying attention to the abundant evidence all around them, since it contradicts their preconceived opinions. And yet, as the current issue of WND's monthly magazine, Whistleblower, conclusively documents, today more than ever the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that guns in the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens will always, in all places and times, result in a safer, more secure and more civilized society.

The question, then, is why do they ignore reality, in the face of overwhelming evidence?

Some were traumatized, like Sarah Brady, whose husband, James Brady, Ronald Reagan's press secretary, had his life essentially ruined by a bullet from John Hinkley's gun, intended for Reagan. Likewise, family members and friends of those who have died or been injured in gun accidents or crimes often have tried to find some meaning, some redeeming value to their loss, by crusading for laws that they hope will prevent similar tragedies.

Such motivation for taking guns out of the hands of lawful citizens, while misguided and even dangerous to the public welfare, is as noble as it gets when it comes to gun-control proponents.

Then you have those who just don't think much, or more likely, who think through their emotions. They see a gun; guns are used to kill and maim people; therefore guns are bad. They are shortsighted, shallow people – the kind con men prey on. They probably have never seen the evidence that gun control doesn't stop crime, and if they did, they probably wouldn't believe it – since their emotions rule their mind.

Some people are afraid of guns. The mere sight of a firearm awakens a fear of violence, a fear of the dark inner tendencies which we all have, and a fear of the very existence of evil tendencies in others and the power that guns give them.

Which brings us to scapegoating. For many, the gun serves as a convenient scapegoat for crime and violence. Apprehending violent criminals, putting the Mafia out of business, halting the heartbreaking epidemic of school shootings, and solving America's huge gang problem are seemingly impossible tasks, but taking guns away from non-violent, law-abiding citizens is safe and manageable. It lets the authorities feel as though they are doing something to solve the nation's crime problem.

Then there are the government bureaucrat types who see family breakdown and the rise of gangs, violence and terrorism, and who feel, "We've got to do something!" In the absence of any real understanding of the core issues, they look to the easy answer of disarming everyone. It's a clean solution, and what's even better, it involves more power for them.

And then, at the very top of the heap, you have the sociopaths, those who want to disarm normal Americans – not to stop criminals, but because they crave power. They know full well that gun control does not prevent crime.

These are the people who think they know what to do with your hard-earned money better than you do, and so subject you to confiscatory taxes. Their egos are so huge that they literally think they know what's best for you. They are very mistrustful of old-fashioned independent Americans who harbor dangerous ideas about freedom, about limited government, about serving God alone, and other such reactionary notions. They just aren't comfortable with the idea of millions of these kinds of Americans keeping and bearing arms.

These are the elite, and their lives are motivated by the types of feelings and thoughts that most of us have never even tasted. Indeed, most people barely know they exist.

Most of us can understand to some degree what motivates a vengeful murderer, since we ourselves have been extremely angry and out-of-control at some point in our lives. That kind of person we seem to be able to understand. What we cannot understand are these elitist types, since we don't personally experience the kinds of thoughts and feelings that make up their very life.

After all, how many of us have had dreams of controlling entire nations, or believe we are superior to everyone else, and that the great ignorant masses desperately need us to run their lives? How many of us have, like Bill Clinton, absolutely no concern for the results of our own actions? How many of us have a desperate need to be needed and worshipped?

It is this combination of elitists and the many stripes of what Lenin called "useful idiots" (the more innocent, albeit emotionalized, proponents of gun-control) that together make up a formidable hierarchy of talent bent on disarming America.

And yet, if America is all about the citizen-sovereign, where individual rights and individual responsibilities must balance each other, there is no place where they intersect more fundamentally and more importantly than in the act of gun ownership. The right to keep and bear arms represents the ultimate natural right – the right to defend yourself and others from evil – and the ultimate responsibility – the responsibility to defend yourself and others from evil.

Allow me to urge WND's readers – and particularly those concerned about the preservation of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms – to subscribe to our monthly magazine Whistleblower, starting with the groundbreaking September issue, "Guns in America." Subtitled, "Myth-busting research says firearms in more hands result in less crime," this issue is perhaps the most powerful and concise journalistic expose available on why gun control not only doesn't succeed in preventing crime – it actually promotes crime.

Besides, subscriptions to our magazine are a major part of what supports WorldNetDaily and our dedicated team of news people. If you appreciate reading WND (your "daily newspaper," which is delivered to you seven days a week for free), then please consider subscribing to Whistleblower (our monthly magazine that provides the insight and depth to make the world make sense). That way, you help us while we help you.

I think that's a great deal. Please let me know if you agree.

David Kupelian is managing editor of WorldNetDaily and Whistleblower Magazine.

Click Here to Subscribe To: Whistleblower Magazine.