California lieutenant governor Gavin Newsom wants Jerry Brown’s job, and he is using gun control as one of his principle platform issues. At the Graton casino last week, Newsom spoke out in support of proposed legislation that would restrict the sale of ammunition, putting it under the same background check laws as firearms themselves. “It seems to me the most dangerous part of the weapon is not the weapon, but the ammunition,” he explained.
Newsom said it made no sense for California to require a drivers’ license to purchase Sudafed while selling ammo to anyone who cared to buy it.
This is one of those nonsensical comparisons that liberals somehow buy into, even though there’s no real connection. Sudafed? You might as well argue: “Hey, you need insurance to drive legally, so why don’t you need insurance to have a baby?” There’s no natural through-line. This is just a bunch of words that Democrats say to make it seem like they have the power of logic on their side.
But okay, let’s pretend for a minute that the Sudafed/ammunition argument makes sense. Couldn’t you just as easily turn it around? Oh yeah, it is stupid to require customers to show ID to buy Sudafed. Let’s stop doing that. But no, you’ll never hear anything like that from a Democrat. Unless the subject is specifically welfare-recipients, liberals will never argue for reduced government regulation. It’s only when you are actively taking money from the taxpayers that you are suddenly free to buy whatever you want, whenever you want.
What a messed-up world…
Newsom, of course, doesn’t want to stop with ammunition background checks. That’s just one part of his “Safety for All” initiative. This plan also includes banning magazines that hold more than 11 bullets, requiring citizens to report lost or stolen firearms, and licensing ammunition sellers more stringently.
Sometimes, even pro-gun conservatives wonder why the NRA and other Second Amendment defenders feel like they have to oppose every Democrat-proposed gun control measure. Isn’t there room for compromise? Is every form of gun control automatically bad?
Yes, there is room for compromise, and no, every form of gun control is not automatically terrible. But don’t forget for a minute who these people are and what they ultimately want. Consider carefully the words of Pete Shields, who wrote in 1976:
We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.
Shields went on to become chairman of the Brady campaign. His timeline was considerably optimistic, but don’t think that those goals have changed. Every little victory they get is leading us to Shields’ ideal America. One step at a time. That’s why we must oppose every Democrat-led gun control proposition, no matter how “reasonable.”