Wednesday, April 29, 2009

MUST READ: Gun Control Without Gun Laws

From Slate today, well-known whoremonger Eliot Spitzer believes Obama can gut the Second Amendment without passing any new laws...definitely a must-read!
Modern government is not only a lawmaker. Indeed, the most effective executive powers may not derive from statutes at all. The government that President Obama oversees is also a gigantic, well-funded procurement agent. And it can—and should—use that power to change American gun policies. Specifically, the government buys lots of guns, for sheriffs, patrol officers, and detectives; for FBI agents, DEA agents, IRS agents, Postal Inspectors, immigration agents, and park rangers; and for soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and spies. The government buys guns by the crate.

What is striking is that the government buys guns from manufacturers who also sell them to criminals—either knowingly or by willfully overlooking the behavior of the retail outlets that the gun companies use as their distribution system. Those of us who were in law enforcement in New York City in the late '80s and early '90s remember how drug dealers pioneered the use of 9-mm guns. We heard over and over from our friends in the police department that they were outgunned, that their service revolvers were no match for semi-automatics in a shootout. So what did the police do? The New York City Police Department finally bought 9-mms, too. It was a classic arms race, with the gun manufacturers in the economically enviable position of selling bigger and better guns to both sides.
This prompts a simple question: Why do we buy guns from companies that permit their products to be sold to bad guys?
In this era of government ownership of financial institutions, we are getting more used to the notion that government as an economic actor can exercise its power in differing ways. After all, firms that received TARP money are subject to a bevy of pay restrictions—wisely constructed or not—and were forced to cancel showy parties and retreats.
If we can use a capital infusion to a bank as an opportunity to control executive compensation and to limit use of private planes, why can't the government use its weight as the largest purchaser of guns from major manufacturers to reward companies that work to keep their products out of criminals' hands? Put another way, if it is too difficult to outlaw bad conduct through statutes, why not pay for good conduct? Why not require vendors to change their behavior if they want our tax dollars?

19 comments:

GeorgeH said...

Maybe they can buy their firearms from H&K. After all, they already hate us.

Anonymous said...

'The government buys guns by the crate.'

But does it buy enough to outfit both the Chinese and Indian militaries.. in 3 months?

http://www.ammoland.com/2009/04/22/usa-buys-enough-guns-in-3-months-to-outfit-the-entire-chinese-and-indian-army/

I think, for their sake, they should be careful cramming regulations and mandates down the throats of firearms manufacturers. Aside from rent seeking toads like H&K they make far more money on civilians than the government. If they take it too far the lot of them might just pull a Barrett/STI on the entire federal government. That would be the day..

Anonymous said...

HK did sign the same agreement that S&W did, except they were able to keep it secret and not suffer the reprecussion.

But the HK guns have been used in crimes, so they are out too.

Anonymous said...

Eliot Spitzer = Lying, Whore mongering, Scumbag. You can bet he has HIS own firearm(s) or security detail on hand.

In the elitist view of these low life politicians only we HONEST, MORAL, LAW ABIDING CITIZENS need be separated from our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

At this stand we are headed for class revolt and pin heads like Eliot Spitzer have much to fear and they KNOW IT.

Anonymous said...

WTF??!! I'd like to buy an ounce of whatever he's taking. Must be some damn good sh*t.

B Woodman

Jim Manley said...

Of course, any government prohibition on economic activity creates a black market. Drug cartels that can get drugs (illegally) can also get guns (illegally).

More fundamentally, though, this would not work from an economic stand point. It is funny that a govt. fanboy like Spitzer so radically overestimates the influence of govt. Do governments buy 10/22s? Revolvers? Every brand of AR-15? Do they buy any of those things by the "crate"? No. And all of those things are still plentiful in the marketplace.

Gun grabbers may be able to influence a few manufacturers to do the dirty work that they can't do politically, but there will always be another firm willing to fill the gap that the government-suckling firm leaves open. The free market is the surest friend freedom will ever know.

Rastus said...

Guys, I've got to say that Elliot Spitzer is hitting the nail on the head for me. I know exactly where he's going with this and I think he's right on the mark.

Err...that would be Marxist....as in Karl Marx.

So now that we have confirmation from Spitzer himself that he is UnAmerican and an avowed Marxist, how do we get the word out he should be watched by the FBI for smuggling governnment secrets to other nations in the name of furthering Marxism?

Chas said...

The problem with Eliot's "classic arms race" is that the most common handgun used by criminals in NYC these days is the .38 caliber revolver. He's a Marxist BS artist, among other things.

Chas said...

Spitzer's applying his sick strangulation fetish to the Second Amendment. It's the usual deception - talk about stopping criminals to gin up support and then aim the policy directly at law-abiding gun owners.

Chas said...

As for the subversives at Slate, I am surprised that they don't have a column by Charles Manson.

Anonymous said...

With talk like that, the title of "World's Most Dangerous Man" just got taken away from Ken Shamrock by Eliot Spitzer. As for the U.S.A. being a free country, it ain't anymore. Seriously, if this is the talk that is going on in the "back room", then the day is not far away when the government decides whether you deserve health-care (or not) based on what you have done in your past. What else could "they" be deciding we deserve (or not)?

Fatman said...

Never take advise on gun control tactics from a man that can't control his own gun.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm, how many M1911s are bought by the government nowadays? Besides SWAT teams (for LA, out of their own pockets...) and Special Forces, few if any.

And how healthy is that market, with a recent Shotgun News cover "Too Many M1911s? ...Never! Doublestar 1911-A1". With the nationwide sweep of shall issue, it's pretty clear the civilian handgun market is big enough to support all the manufacturers we (civilians) need.

BigBlk said...

Chas said...
The problem with Eliot's "classic arms race" is that the most common handgun used by criminals in NYC these days is the .38 caliber revolver. He's a Marxist BS artist, among other things."
END QUOTE

The other logical fallacy in Spitzer's argument is that the police were "outgunned" by the thugs carrying 9mm, and the response by the PDs was to buy 9mm. Last time I checked, the police service revolvers that were still in widespread use in the 80's and early 90's, mostly chambered in .357 Magnum, provided VASTLY more stopping power than 9mm. True they may have had less rounds per reload in a revolver, but more are needed when one isn't enough to stop a threat.

Middle Man said...

What I find more astounding and disturbing is his quote: "In this era of government ownership of financial institutions, we are getting more used to the notion that government as an economic actor can exercise its power in differing ways." That line of thinking puts to light that banning guns is but a single point in a broad agenda to tear liberty and individual freedom from the average American.

Clark Kent said...

Who pays heed to that lying jackass anymore?

Anonymous said...

I think he is talking about nationalizing gun manufactures just like the financial institutions. Build what the government wants, sell it all to the government and don’t sell to anyone else. In exchange we will guarantee you a profit. Don’t go along and you will be shut down.

If Obama can dictate to GM who can or can’t be CEO and tell Chrysler to let Fiat buy them – do you think they can’t do this?

Chas said...

It's a good thing to see Spitzer on the side of gun control. I do not want a man who gets off on strangling prostitutes to be on our side. Let him work for the Brady Center.

sagar said...

StayAt Hotel Apartments is just what it sounds like – spacious apartments with fully equipped kitchenettes for people travelling in business or pleasure or both.
Amsterdam Hotels