The Progressive Gun-Control Charade – the Wall Street Journal

Name:

Professor:

Course:

Date:

Gun Control

The Progressive Gun-Control Charade – The Wall Street Journal

In his article, Nicholas Johnson argues that the politicians are using the recent mass shootings in Oregon to advocate for strict gun control amendments. Their opinion is that if the National Rifle Association were not so stubborn, these shootings could have been prevented. A good example is Hilary Clinton, who urged for sensible restraints and insisted that if she were in power, she would use the executive authority she has to impose them. This means that there is the possibility of a workable policy being implemented in the future. It also suggests that there can be effective gun control without disarming ordinary citizens by reaching into their gun safes.

The times have changed since the gun-ban movement peaked, a period when politicians were honest enough to inform the citizens of how they would constrict the supply of firearms to reduce gun-related violence, and what was required of them. In a 1989 Senate hearing, a Democrat Senator from Ohio explained candidly that if the government were not going to ban all the guns, then it would be better if none of them were banned.

American voters, even the most liberal ones, have always gone against any gun ban imposed on them. Take the 1976 poll in Massachusetts where voters rejected a handgun ban referendum. In this case, 86 percent of eligible voters turned up to the poll, and 69 percent voted against the ban while 24 percent voted for the ban.  Another case was in 1982 where lawmakers implemented a handgun freeze law that was rejected by the citizens. This law aimed at barring the sale of handguns. 72 percent of eligible voters turned up for the poll, and 63 percent voted against the freeze while 37 percent voted for the freeze.

The politics of gun control have been an on and off thing since decades ago. Progressive politicians are always in the forefront advocating for less strict gun control laws in states where strict laws are in play, all in the hope of winning the votes of American households owning a gun. Once elected, though, these politicians come up with incremental gun restrictions that are not adequate. For example, the ban on assault weapons which restricted the sale of a new narrow class of rifles that came with adjustable stocks and a pistol grip but allowed similar firearms without these features to be sold.

Second Amendment activists and gun owners understand that the Senator from 1989 knew what he was saying about the supply side of gun control. These two groups will always resist incremental gun restrictions since they know the latest proposal is never the last step when it comes to gun controls. If these half-measures fail either in effectiveness or passage of the bill into law, the progressive politicians can always blame the gun lobby.

The president’s open praise of the gun ban in Australia is progress in itself. It sets the American citizens on a path that leads to an honest debate on confiscation policies that are required by the supply-side gun control. The hurdle is getting politicians who use gun owners to get votes to come out and speak candidly about this issue just as the president has.