Gun control and addiction (Part 1)
There are many behavioral similarities between alcoholism and gun control. The following
description is from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
Alcoholism, also known as alcohol dependence, is a disease that includes the following four symptoms:
- Craving–A strong need, or urge, to drink.
- Loss of control–Not being able to stop drinking once drinking has begun.
- Physical dependence–Withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety after stopping drinking.
- Tolerance–The need to drink greater amounts of alcohol to get "high."
Now let us look at each of these four points in order to better understand the mind-set of the gun controller.
Craving: A strong need, or urge, to ban guns
Almost every day you can find demands for more gun control. For example, the
Brady Campaign to Prevent Guns…well…Gun Violence just released its latest
report blaming America’s “weak” gun laws for the violence in Mexico, even though the
Los Angeles Times reports that Mexican drug lords are arming themselves with military weaponry via the
international arms market.
Recommendations are paraded before us as being “common sense gun laws” to reduce crime, even though a
Centers for Disease Control study concluded that they could find no reliable beneficial link between these “common sense” laws and reduced crime.
So how has this affected gun controllers, after decades of ever-increasing restrictions and “common sense” laws that only seem to affect the law-abiding citizen’s access to firearms?
This has not satisfied the Brady Campaign et al. According to them,
20,000 gun control laws are not enough; they crave more gun control.
Brady continues to develop
programs, such as one designed to help doctors invade the privacy of their patients and “to talk with patients/clients and their families about the dangers of keeping a gun in the home.” The
Violence Policy Center home page reads like the cover of the National Enquirer, proclaiming “U.S. Can Act Immediately to Halt Import of AK-47 Assault Rifles Fueling Gun Violence on U.S./Mexico Border.” The need here is to prove that it is “sensible” to ban yet another gun.
Loss of control: Unable to stop banning guns once begun
England and Australia instituted draconian gun bans in the mid-1990s. The new laws were hailed as the dawn of a bright new day, when people would be safer, but violent crime went up in both countries, and law-abiding people were less safe. Between 1995 and 2006, Britain’s violent crime rate increased 29.2%, with rape leading the way at a 76.5% increase. Australia saw a 39.1% increase in violent crime during the same time period.* The response of the politicians and police? Since British criminals can
buy any gun they desire, the government is pressing for
knife control.
In our country, we see the same cast of characters left over from the Clinton era:
Diane Feinstein, who said if she had the votes in 1994, she would have rounded up all our guns, wants to renew and expand the Clinton gun ban, even though no proof exists it has done any good.
Frank Lautenberg wants to restrict your ability to buy firearms because he wants to stop “suspected terrorists from getting easy access to guns.” Of course, he never explains why terrorists would travel over here to purchase hunting rifles and pistols, when they live near
arms bazaars in the Middle East and can buy machine guns, surface-to-air missiles, explosives, artillery, etcetera, none of which the average citizen can purchase in this country.
Charles Schumer, comrade in disarmament with Feinstein, helped write the 1994 Assault Weapons ban and wants it
renewed.
To demonstrate that gun control, like alcoholism, results in insane behavior, all three voted “no” on an
amendment aimed at reducing juvenile crime by “encouraging states to prosecute violent armed juveniles as adults.” This continues the fine tradition begun by ex-President Clinton: In his final days in office, he
pardoned drug dealers, people likely to use firearms in a violent manner. As Mexico’s experience proves, drug dealers don’t need legal access to firearms: They simply use their existing smuggling channels. But law-abiding citizens need to be disarmed to make society safer.
This shows the absolute loss of control that accompanies the addiction of gun control. This twisted psychology is why gun controllers, who have no compassion for you and no consideration for your civil rights, bend over backwards to be compassionate and forgiving to criminals who have demonstrated a complete lack of compassion towards you. They relate to criminals because deep down inside they recognize the empathetic link of shared insanity.
(Continued in part 2)
Check out other Gun Rights Examiners: