1:08 - Dan Gross says this is just about catching the bad guys. That is not true. Microstamping will only be able to lead law enforcement to the original, legal purchaser of the firearm who is not always the person who committed the crime.
1:29 - S. E. Cupp leaves out the fact that gun registration is not universal. If what Bloomberg says is true about most of New York's "crime guns" coming from other states (states that aren't even considering microstamping or gun registration), microstamping will not help solve most New York crimes. Microstamping will only be somewhat effective if the gun used in the crime was bought in New York.
2:09 - Guy in a suit says gun owners are accused of crimes just because they have guns. I don't know where he gets that notion. Maybe that's the way things work under the fascist system of Bloomberg, but in the free parts of the country, that's simply not true. And even if it were, microstamping wouldn't change that. Again, microstamping can only allow you to trace a gun back to it's orginal, legal purchaser and they could just as easily (if not more easily) be falsely accused of a crime as someone who doesn't have a microstamping gun. If anything, microstamping would create an environment of gun owners being "guilty until proven innocent" as S. E. Cupp says.
3:10 - Dan Gross mentions a cap of $12.50 per gun for making it microstamping. He mentions this in relation to the cost of saving lives. The problem here is the microstamping can't save lives. In fact, it can only be effective after the crime has been committed and a life possibly ended. Again, says it will help catch bad guys. As explained previously, the bad guy isn't always the person who purchased the gun.
3:55 - Alex Wagner talks about gun advocates claiming that microstamping amounts to a gun ban. That much is true. A microstamping mandate essentially creates a de facto ban on firearms made by companies that can't afford to or simply don't want to implement microstamping technology.
5:37 - Dan Gross mentions anti-law eforcement paranoia. Speaking of law enforcement, I wonder if he can explain why guns purchased by law enforcement agencies will be exempt from microstamping laws? Is it the cost? Is it because it negatively impacts the reliability of firearms? Do they believe law enforcement officials don't commit crimes?
6:54 - Dan Gross pushes the false narrative that neither he nor the Brady Campaign advocate gun bans. Complete and utter BS. Taken verbatim from the Brady Campaign's FAQ page:
Our prioirites are requiring Brady criminal background checks on all gun sales; banning military-style assault weapons; and strengthening law enforcement's efforts to stop the illegal gun market, like limiting the number of guns that can be bought at one time.Anyone who advocates banning any type of gun is anti-gun. There is no way around it.
Summary:
1. Even when put up against a relative lightweight like S. E. Cupp, Dan Gross seems to be just as weak and uninspiring as his predecessor.
2. Microstamping is hogwash. It can be rendered useless with a $2 tool and a few minutes of time.
3. Why are anti-gunners so adamant about this useless technology? There are two reasons. One, some antigunners are True Believers who really think this technology will accomplish it's goals of making crimes easier to solve. Two, the other more sinister anti-gunners know that any ground gained is better than no ground gained. They know that if they can get this to pass, they'll have something to wave in front of George Soros and their other sugar daddies as proof that the anti-gun lobby isn't completely irrelevant.
No comments:
Post a Comment