Arizona Dems’ unreasoned defense of gun buybacks
April 17, 2013 Leave a comment
I have to say, the Boston bombing earlier this week makes these days sad and sobering. Breaching insanity-as-usual, there is for a time, something approaching a public consensus on the reality of evil.
Of course, it is one thing to admit evil exists; it’s another thing to take action that combats it. Gun buybacks definitely aren’t one of those things. Today an AP headline tells of an amusing way to deal with them: “Ariz. bill passed makes cities sell turned-in guns.”
The law in Arizona already requires that cities sell confiscated weapons. All the new bill does is extend this to buyback guns as well. This move exposes the absurdity of the buyback project. The number of guns removed by buybacks are hopelessly miniscule compared to the stock in circulation. And, only upright, conscientious citizens think of turning their guns over to law enforcement. This increases the ratio of bad guys with guns to good guys with guns. So buybacks are a losing proposition on two counts. Inasmuch as cities decide to conduct these exercises in futility, why shouldn’t the state mandate that they recoup some of the cost?
Okay, so this is a slap in the face of liberal feel-good activism. But the rejoinder by Democrats is unworthy of being called reasonable or logical:
Democrats argued that Republicans complain about the federal government when it requires the state to take action, yet they’re quick to force local governments to do what they want. “We hate it when the federal government mandates it to the state, and we’re doing the same thing,” said Sen. Lynne Pancrazi, D-Yuma. They also complained about victims having to deal with the knowledge that a gun that killed a loved one could end up back on the streets.
This appears to be some sort of appeal to a double-standard. But there’s a huge distinction between unwanted federal meddling and the state prescribing laws for the cities that are organized directly under its authority. That distinction is the simple difference between the constitutions of the U.S. and Arizona respectively. The Democratic senator is actually complaining about the compulsory nature of laws themselves rather than any hypocrisy Republicans might harbor. But this is highly inconsistent coming from a party that thrives in direct proportion to the increase of government regulations, budgets, and lawsuits.
The complaint about guns ending up back on the streets is a non sequitur. That happens already, in spite of the new bill being passed. In fact, any gun that killed a person is more likely to have been seized than bought back. How often does a person commit murder with a gun and then sell the weapon to law enforcement? And if that were to happen, what is the likelihood the victim’s family would actually know or care about the ultimate fate of the gun? Arizona Democrats sure are testing the limits of the emotional appeal. Break out the tiny violins.
But what is most remarkable of all is that the AP reporter quotes these Democrats matter of fact, as if their statements actually made sense.