Home / Gun Ownership / Why the Gun Control Movement Is Doomed
Print Friendly and PDF

Why the Gun Control Movement Is Doomed

Written by Gary North on December 21, 2012

Gary North’s Reality Check (Dec. 21, 2012)

I have watched the gun control movement become a major voice against gun ownership over the last 40 years. What has most impressed me is this: this movement has been unsuccessful in disarming Americans. The demand for guns keeps rising.

I have known the leaders of the gun ownership movement. Larry Pratt is the head of the lobbying group, Gun Owners of America. He has held that position for as long as the organization has existed. It began in 1975. The founder of the organization, H. L. “Bill” Richardson, was a state senator in California. I do not recall when I first met him, but it was probably sometime around 1967. I met Pratt no later than 1969, and it may have been earlier. I have watched Gun Owners of America grow into a major sounding board for those who want to preserve Second Amendment freedoms. There are a number of lobbying organizations that promote gun ownership, but Gun Owners of America is generally regarded as hard-core. It does not recommend making political deals with those who would control legal access to firearms.

These mass murderers are almost always on prescription mood-altering drugs. The mainstream media rarely mention this. Every time that there is an incident where the latest drug-crazed shooter kills a number of people, there is a strong push by the gun control movement to get all guns banned. In contrast, every time some elderly lady shoots an intruder who had invaded her home, there is a brief story about this in the local newspaper. I have known for over 40 years that reporting in the major media is skewed in favor of the gun control movement.

In the years that I have known Richardson and Pratt, I have watched the gun control movement attempt to ban access to firearms, and in virtually all cases, it has failed. Guns are as plentiful today at gun shows as they were 40 years ago. We see billboards promoting gun shows in small towns across the South. I do not know if they have comparably sized shows outside of the South, but in the South, they are well attended.

There is more registration than was required 40 years ago, but there has been no concerted effort to move from gun registration to gun confiscation. With computerization, the possibility exists, but the manpower required to enforce such a ban of weapons would be astronomical.

ENFORCEMENT

Some laws are inherently unenforceable. We know that the laws are unenforceable among urban gang members. Gang members are among the best-armed civilians in the world. Gangs have more firepower than most local police departments. They do not use this firepower against what they would regard as the civilian population. They use the weapons against other gang members.

There is no way in the United States that the federal government could gain access to the weapons of the country without threatening extremely high fines or other penalties. It is unlikely that Congress will enact legislation that would authorize some system of draconian imposition of fines or jail sentences for violators.

The sheer volume of guns owned by Americans precludes the ability of the federal government to confiscate anything like 80% of the weapons. The kinds of people who own weapons are the kinds of people who resist bureaucratic intrusions into their lives. It is not like Americans in 1933, who surrendered gold coins in the darkest days of the Great Depression. They did not view gold coins as basic to their rights as citizens. They were incorrect in this regard, but there has never been the degree of commitment to the ownership of gold coins that there has been to the ownership of firearms.

Who would enforce the ban? I do not think that it will be local sheriffs. It may be local police departments, but local law enforcement agencies do not like to think of themselves as being unpaid enforcers of federal regulations. Cooperation will be limited, at best.

(For the rest of the article, click the link.)

Continue Reading on www.garynorth.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

51 thoughts on “Why the Gun Control Movement Is Doomed

  1. "…every time some elderly lady shoots an intruder who had invaded her home, there is a brief story about this in the local newspaper."
    Another story you'll never hear a peek about in the corporate owned media is the ordinary citizen with a concealed carry permit who drew down on Jacob Roberts at the Portland mall shooting one day before Newtown. He didn't even fire his weapon out of concern for innocent bystanders, but it was enough to make Roberts turn the gun on himself and avert another mass murder.

  2. take guns away from criminals. good idea. and insane people. good idea. law abiding citizens dont comit crimes like we read about. but, we are easy targets. stupid. take away the 2nd amendment and let the british army disarm us. or let hitler disarm us as he did the germans. or stalin, or mao. wonder why dicatatros do so well? no one to fight back apression

  3. But the teal point is to disarm the populace do they can’t fight the coming dictatorship, it has little to do with school safety, that is just the false flag premise.

  4. "From my cold dead hands". With our current government we would do well to keep everything we have in order as you may never know what could happen in the future and we may need a little extra power to stay alive. This is our country and we will control it as we wish.

  5. Pissed off Vet says:

    If you allow them to take away SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON then the first Amendment is next and then another once you open the door to this we will lose all our rights. WAKE UP AMERICA THE WOLF IS AT THE DOOR.

  6. Phillip the Bruce says:

    Who would enforce a ban? The local police might, if they perceive it to be in their best interests by reducing resistance to their own gangster-like activities from the local sheeple.

    • State/local law enforcement don't enforce federal law, nor can any federal law force them to do so.

      We already have a SCOTUS decision on the above.

  7. Yeah, okay. And as I remember, Romney was going to win in a landslide and there would be no voter fraud, either.

    I promise armed resistance to the imposition of any attempt to confiscate any of my personal property by any enemy foreign or domestic because resistance to any tyranny is defense of the Constitution. I would hate to kill and or injure one or more of my local LEOs, and they don't want that either and would likely join me in my resistance. I would hate to kill or injure one or more of the fine people in our military, but I would, whether my life is ended or not, and I also believe that those men and women would also join me in my resistance. But it may take resistance of that degree to motivate the aforementioned to action.

    As Patrick Henry once said, " the tree of Liberty must at times be fed with the blood of patriots (and tyrants)". I don't wish to be one of those, but I will, if it comes to that.

    Pray it doesn't.

    • i would like to think all patriots would fight to defend our rights. but would we? if a squad of goons show up at our door, in swat garb, and we are alone would we really resist??? and if we do it will be exactly what the communist muslim in our white house wants. then he could say it would be necessary to request aid from the communists countries that make the so called united nations. we may be doomed for allowing the muslim communist to occupy our white house.

      • I live in the country. If I saw a SWAT team outside my neighbours property and was told they were coming for their guns, the SWAT team would be in the middle of a gun fight. My neighbour would be on one side, my family would be on the other. I think they call that a crossfire or maybe being surrounded. ;-) Most everyone in this area would join in. I might also add, we have a really low crime rate here. Just about everyone is a hunter and armed to the teeth. A SWAT team would quickly find itself outnumbered.

  8. That is a great quote, one of my favorites, but spoken by Thomas Jefferson.

  9. Gloria Wedemeyer says:

    There were something like 8,000 murders last year with guns and somewhere around l2,000 deaths by drunker drivers.__Then it would seem like cars have a higher impact on people losing their lives. Well, then do we ban all car-driving.__well their excuse would be that the the law abiding people who do not drink should not be punished because of the very few drunk drivers. Well, I guess the same argument then would apply to gun ownership, the responsible gun owners far outweigh the mentally unbalanced in this country. I just heard that no assault weapons were used in Newtown, only hand guns. When will all this madness stop.

    • I just read the same info. There are a lot of tools to kill people with. Cars, guns, knives, bats, golf clubs, or just a stick. If we are going to outlaw everything that can kill someone, we are going to starve to death, pretty soon.

      We have problems in our country and guns, alcohol and such is just a symptom of the problem. We are not getting to the root of the problem, just scratching at the surface.

  10. I've given this much thought and I have come to the conclusion that the government isn't capable of confiscating all the guns in this country…BUT….the capability they do have is to control ammunition. A gun without ammo is no better than a stick. I believe this is the avenue they will take. Already many different types of ammo are hard to find and or purchase, not because of the government but because of the increase in gun purchasing. So my line of thought is once you have your weapon of choice then your next goal is to buy all the ammunition for that gun you can. Always keep in mind that the 2nd Amendment was conceived to protect Americans from enemies BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC ! At the present time we have both to contend with.

    • The national trend toward total government surveillance of everything we do and the monitoring of all our transactions can be the mechanism by which gun confiscation is attempted. A national ID card embedded with a chip could be the tool. In the name of combating terror, the President could dip into his arsenal of emergency executive powers and issue an executive order mandating that henceforth no transaction of any sort can take place without a national ID card being scanned for permission to complete the transaction.

      We already have a No Fly list compiled with no warning or explanation by anonymous bureaucrats. It's at least very costly if not impossible to have one's name removed from this list. It's not hard to imagine a No Grocery list, or a No Gasoline list, or a No Banking list, or a No Employment list, or a No Electricity list…. All these many lists can too be compiled by anonymous bureaucrats. Just as a transaction cannot take place if a credit card is denied, a transaction cannot take place if an ID holder is on a "No" list. The "No" lists will be a cheap mechanism for population control. No police, no courts, no prisons. Step out of line for any reason and your name can end up on a quality of life crimping list, and there's very little you can do about it.

      Since most guns are registered, databases of gun owners exist. The President can issue an emergency order confiscating all guns. For any guns not turned in, their owners can find themselves on a "No" list as a warning. If the guns are still not turned in, the "No" list screws will tighten until the guns are either turned in or their owners are impoverished. Very little manpower will be needed to accomplish gun confiscation. Just some computer geeks in windowless offices adding names to lists.

      Of course, as in all government projects, there will be confusion and a huge inconvenience and black market costs imposed on the public. But the public is already putting up with irradiation and molestation at airports with scarcely a whimper. That's the go ahead signal that the public will put up with any outrage or indignity if it's for the children.

  11. Ban movements never work.

    California has had a de jure ban since 1989, but de facto you can still buy whatever you want.

    Essentially nobody bothered to comply with the California ban, no one would do so for any federal ban either.

  12. Banning guns will just drive them underground

  13. Time to stop calling them "gun controllers." Time to start calling them "gun haters."

  14. For all you conspiracy-theorist idiots out there, NO ONE WANTS TO BAN GUNS. They want them better REGULATED.

    It's in the fucking second amendment, assholes. A "well-regulated militia." Guns, right now, are barely regulated at all. That is NOT what was intended.

    Get your sticks out of your asses. Gun regulation WILL HAPPEN. Better to be at the bargaining table when it does, but once again – even if you're not at the bargaining table – GUNS WILL NOT BE BANNED.

    • Guns are the most regulated consumer product in America. For people with an irrational hatred of guns, no amount of regulation is ever enough.

    • Why so angry Shane?Take a breath. The goal IS to disarm citizens worldwide. You comments about a well regulated militia as though gun registration or restrictions were somehow implied makes you look like an idiot. Well regulated means well prepared and trained. Every citizen is a member of the “militia” at least potentially.

      • Completely and utterly wrong. I know it’ll take some time for you conspiracy-theorist douchebags to get it through your tin foil-addled brains (hell, maybe it never will, but I can hope), but no gun banning legislation will ever be passed. None. Ever. The US owns too many guns for that to ever happen. The gun lobby is too big for that to ever happen. So get back in your bunker, snuggle up with your AK and mountain of bullets and STFU.

    • Bill Smith says:

      Take your meds Shane!

    • Ah, yes. The call of the simple-minded strikes again. Listen pipsqueak, if you actually had any brains whatsoever in your tiny little head you would realize that the word "regulated" in the late 18th century meant "well supplied". Now, get off your arrogant high horse, sit down like a good little boy and let the adults teach you reality.

      Idiot.

    • Rabelrouser says:

      So Shane, I can reasonable guess that you are not aware of the Militia Act of 1792 which ratified, and defined the Second Amendment; in as much as you try to justify your statement with a "websters" definition.
      But this is to be expected by those who want their own lives regulated, because they are not personally responsible enough to do it themselves.

    • Gee, Shane – love your ability to maintain a calm disposition while engaging in what is supposed to be polite discussion. So nice to see that the left is maintaining the same demeanor that demonstrated – pun intended – in the 60's.

      Perhaps you missed a few things while you compiled your insult filled retort, besides the thousands of gun laws already in existence, that being the mentality behind the people calling for so-called "regulation".

      Do you recall what Dianne Feinstein, a continued anti-rights advocate – stated on 60 minutes in 1995? I do.

      "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in — I would have done it."

      Sometimes the truth slips out.

      The ironic thing is that she was the holder of a Concealed Carry Permit in San Francisco County, a nearly impossible thing to obtain for "ordinary" people.

      • Lol. You’re assuming I’m “liberal left” when I’m more “left center”. Just hard to maintain a civil disposition when I see dozens of idiots screaming about how their guns are going to be taken away. While you may keep a rational tone, the other 95% are shrieking like two-year-olds until their lungs give out.

    • “Regulated” in the 1700s did not mean controlled or monitored. It mean in proper working order or functioning as it should. The 2nd Amendment basically states that in order for a militia (a military force made up of common men, not inlisted soldiers, not a National Guard) to properly function, the right of the people to have guns shall not be restricted or hindered. Any other interpretation of this Amendment, taking into account the quotes of Founding Fathers on the subject, is asinine.

    • 2WarAbnVet says:

      Right Shane, right. No one wants to ban guns – until you wake up one morning and find that they've need banned. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

    • You need to get yourself educated, boy. When they said well regulated, that meant in 1790 American English, regular practice so the Militia (ie the people) could hit what they shot at. It had nothing to do with "controlling" them. The second amendment was written into the constitution to allow the people as a whole (the Militia) to overthrow oppressive government if needed. What gives libtard morons heartburn is that condition has been prevalent for some time. In other words, time is past due for using our arms as the founders intended.

  15. For those talking about banning guns. Ask yourself this. How well did that work for prohibition? It didn't. We got cities like Chicago and people like Al Capone from that. Banning anything does not work. It never has, never will.

  16. Idylewylde says:

    When I lived in California, an anti-gun state, I saw Hispanic guys pull up in cars, open the trunk and sell every firearm imaginable out of the back to anyone with cash .. including to children.
    Little did I know that the DoJ was supplying the Hispanic gun runners with American made firearms.
    And this is the same political regime that wants to ban my legally purchased guns … go figure.

  17. Lots about firearms, all very good. What's the future of ammunition? Even a 3D printed firearm isn't much good without ammo.

    • Billions of rounds of empty brass. They can be reloaded. Lead can be cast into bullets, Know how many discarded wheel weights there are in this country? As for high capacity magazines, any 7th or 8th grade shop student can make them with any sheet metal. Besides, there are many, many large caliber hunting rifles with scopes, and people who can shoot them.
      So, as long as the gummint storm troopers have weapons, we will have lots of them. That's the way guerrillas have armed themselves for thousands of years. So, the fascist gummint can't win. They're just damm stupid to see it. But, I'll take that.

  18. AQny compedent machinsh can make a gun, any compedent chemist can make gunpower. If you own a gun lean to reload, it is not hARD.

  19. Gary, I hope you're right. But it seems to me that the current administration and congress have been somewhat successful in shoving legislation down our throats in the face of massive opposition. The key is their (the administration's) opportunism and congress' cowardice and lack of principle.

  20. […] Gary North thinks it is highly unlikely, for several excellent reasons. In his comments at The Tea Party Economist (which he unashamedly uses to promote his subscription service, GaryNorth.com), North reminds his readers that he’s been watching efforts to confiscate guns fail to gain significant traction for more than 40 years: I have watched the gun control movement become a major voice against gun ownership over the last 40 years. What has most impressed me is this: this movement has been unsuccessful in disarming Americans. […]

  21. If they want to ban guns your politician should set the example.

    Have unarmed bodyguards at all time and the weapons the politician owns will be turned in also.

    ONLY then might I consider gun control, but I doubt it.

  22. "Gun control" requires such faith in a concept that cannot be proven by experiential data, statistics or reproducible science that it should be classified as more of a religion than Christianity, Judaism or Islam. At least then it would be worthy of it's tax-free status.

  23. wildruff60 says:

    There WILL be a RACIAL Component to any Gun Ban!! Obama will not try to take Guns from 'HIS People.' No "Revenooer" ATF, or any other Fed is going into the Ghetto, or Barrio and demanding the 'Recipients' to Give up their Stolen, Street Corner, Bought Out of the Car Trunk , Guns and Ammo. Ain't Gonna Happen!! Only the Blue-Eyed, White Devil Slave-Masters, will be Rousted, and have their Homes Searched!!

  24. Because we are aware of them to try to exploit fear to go after guns again, Now watch for media liberal left to try to bring some of these things into play by (saying we can) treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorder which no one but psychiatrists can understand.They will try to put the idea out there that we should have some transfer of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies,they will try to Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose their leftist liberal communist goals and discredit the family as an institution and encourage promiscuity and easy divorce they will try to emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents , Can you see the current push in these directions? Open your eyes!

  25. We hear about the record gun sales. That is encouraging however, what percentage of those are being purchased by government operatives? Are they possibly using fiat money to purchase thousands of guns just to take them out of circulation? Are they placing them in the hands of the psychologically unfit who have been brainwashed? There are credible reports to support this premise.

    All I'm saying is be suspicious.

  26. 2WarAbnVet says:

    I would point out that the concept of gun confiscation is not, by any means, a new one. It has even been tried once before. It didn't work out so well for the British on 19 April 1775; any would-be tyrant should take note.

  27. […] is doomed! Another excellent article by Gary North on why he thinks Gun Control is doomed. Why the Gun Control Movement Is Doomed Enjoy, WBR Reply With Quote « Previous Thread | Next […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>