September 8, 2011 by Bob Livingston
After a Labor Day weekend that saw at least 57 people shot in New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg — the founder of Mayors Against Illegal Guns — called on the Federal government “to step up” and pass tough gun laws.
But rather than prove that stricter gun laws would reduce or prevent violent crime, the weekend of carnage actually proves the folly of restrictions on gun ownership. New York City already has the toughest gun control laws in the country.
With laws already in place that punish assault, attempted murder, murder and myriad other violent crimes, tacking on more violations is not going to make someone pause before pulling the trigger if he is already predisposed to pull it while the gun is aimed at another person.
If the prevalence of weapons is the problem, as Bloomberg and those of his ilk would have you believe, how is it that people don’t go on murderous rampages at gun shows and competitions? Why have the competitors on the History Channel’s “Top Shot” not shot one another on national television? And how is it that gun crime rates are lower in areas with fewer restrictions on gun ownership?
In An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Noah Webster wrote:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
Gun control laws aren’t for reducing gun crime. They are for disarming the populace in order to give more power to the State. The Founders understood this concept. Bloomberg and his fellow Mayors Against Illegal Guns know it, too. They just aren’t saying it.