HomeJoinMissionAbout UsLinksActivism

By Matthew Holmes

Liberals and criminals alike are anxiously awaiting the verdict on Illinois' newest gun ban, HB 2414.  Honestly, it's hard to tell who's more excited.

I guess liberals figure if they can't keep Americans from buying guns, they'll try putting people in prison for owning them.

Meanwhile, thousands of law-abiding citizens in Illinois are forced to imagine being incarcerated for legally purchasing and owning a gun.

That's the idea behind The People's Republic of Illinois House Bill 2414, in which gun owners would have 90 days to surrender their legally purchased semi-automatic firearms to the police, or face felony prosecution and stiff jail sentences.

Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson called the bill a "public policy nightmare."

Apparently, Pearson still thinks the Second Amendment to the Constitution (for you liberals, that's the one that says Congress can't make laws infringing on your right to keep and bear arms) actually means that Congress can't make a law infringing on your right to keep and bear arms.

You'll have to forgive conservatives, who haven't grasped the concept of a living, breathing Constitution, where "keep and bear arms" actually means "sodomy and abortion on demand."

"Overnight, the bill would create an entirely new class of criminals," Pearson continued.  "I think it would be conservative to say that at least half of the gun owners in Illinois own firearms that would be banned under this bill. The result would be that more than 750,000 citizens, few of whom ever even contemplated committing a crime, would be instantly branded as 'criminals' by the mere stroke of the Governor's pen."

In that case, Hillary Clinton might want to rethink her strategy of advocating giving convicted felons the right to vote.

Meanwhile, violent criminals everywhere anxiously await the vote on the ban, hoping to relocate from red states (where they currently risk getting shot) to blue state utopias where they would hold all the bullets.

While I doubt the Illinois legislature would hail the bill's passage as "a victory for criminals," that is precisely the segment of the electorate that will benefit from such a brilliant proposal.  Now, if only liberals could get street gangs to fill out their voter registration cards, they might stand a chance in 2008.

If John F. Kerry can predict mass violence following the expiration of the so called "Assault Weapons Ban," with no evidence to back up his claim and no accountability when he's wrong (as usual), then I feel comfortable in making a prediction of my own if HB 2414 is passed.

But, unlike Kerry's bogus assertion—that allowing law abiding citizens to purchase weapons will result in more violent crime—my assertion is both logical and provable.

If U.S. history holds true, Illinois will soon join Washington D.C., Georgia, and fellow socialist republic Massachusetts with the distinction of having both the nation's "toughest" gun restrictions and highest murder rates. 

Burglars will be free to burgle and muggers will mug to their little heart's content. 

In time, the only criminal in danger of being shot in Illinois will be the crook stupid enough to wear a deer costume and pull a gun on Ted Nugent in the middle of the woods during hunting season.

Researchers like Yale's John Lott have proven time and again that countries with widespread bans like Great Britain (where all handguns are banned) and Australia (where multiple classes of firearms are illegal) have higher homicide rates and documented incidents of "very serious" violent crime, which result in an overall violent crime rate nearly twice that of the United States (UK: 3.6 per 100 people; USA 1.9 per 100).

Similar trends are found within the U.S., where a state with oppressive gun control laws like Massachusetts has far higher murder rates than neighbors Maine and New Hampshire with their "lax" gun control rules.

Liberals have had more than 23,000 chances to prove that restrictions on guns reduce violent crime.

What is ironic is that the only gun law to succeed in doing so is the "Right to Carry" law, which allows non-criminals to carry firearms in public.  Unfortunately, the irony is still completely lost on liberals, as House Bill 2414 once again proves.

In my never-ending attempt to communicate in a language liberals can understand, I will do the honorably French thing by letting someone else fight my battle for me:

1) "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson Elliot)

2) "The great object is that every man be armed. ... Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry)

3) "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable...The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." (George Washington)

4) The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic." (Justice Joseph Story)

5) "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."  (Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria's On Crime And Punishment.

Apparently, none of these Founding Fathers got the memo about a living Constitution.  So, spare me the "guns are only for cops and the military" garbage.

Proponents of the ban continue to beat their dead horse with the same tired claim that semi-automatic rifles are not used for hunting or target shooting.  (Next on the agenda is a proposed lawsuit against Nintendo unless they ban Duck Hunt.)

You'll have to forgive our French/Liberal citizens—it has simply never crossed their minds to defend themselves from anything.  They still think that’s what the U.N. is for.

But, since liberals believe hunting is the only reason to own a firearm, I wonder if it would be possible to get a license to hunt criminals?

Oh, that's right, we have one.  It's called the Second Amendment.

Matthew Holmes is a North Carolina based columnist.  His articles have been featured in the North Carolina Conservative, ChronWatch.Com, World Net Daily.Com, News Max.Com, Opinion Editorials.Com, and other media outlets.  He can be reached at blade729@msn.com or on the web at Wildfire Politics http://www.wildfirepolitics.com

email this page