KORWIN: The Loophole, Australia and Junk-Gun Myths

Alan Korwin, visit his website GunLaws.com.

Alan Korwin, visit his website GunLaws.com.

I want to finish describing the gun myths anti-rights advocates keep throwing at us, so we’re the fully informed electorate the Founding Fathers wanted. But there are so many! It seems the only thing the other side has are myths! If freedom is the gauge, every new (or old) gun proposal coming out of the left attacks a mythological problem.

Hence, it won’t solve any of the very real problems we do have. But it will attack the rights people currently have, so we fight back with the vigor you might expect from freed slaves being offered shiny new chains. No wonder we can’t get anywhere. Stop offering chains on our rights and calling them common-sense laws.

THE LOOPHOLE MYTH

An old fable describes an immigrant who came to this country, learned English, built a great department store, made a fortune, but never understood what a “loophole” was. So he asked around, as was his habit, and struggled with the concept until it dawned on him. “Aha,” he said. “A loophole is freedom.”

And indeed it is. A loophole is something law hasn’t closed off for you, yet. It is a freedom you still possess, something you are still free to do, and it presents a way for your enemies to attack you, by threatening or working to close it down. After all, loopholes in law should be closed, right?

Wrong. That’s a myth, because loopholes represent freedom. Anti-gun-rights factions use this subtle manipulative tool constantly, identifying one gun freedom after another, declaring them loopholes, and demanding removal, closure, limits, repeals, overrides and endings.

The enemies of freedom don’t stop with guns and ammo, they’re after all loopholes. Freedom no, control yes. You can ride bicycles without helmets? Another loophole! We must fix that. People can cook food at home without keeping their kitchens sanitary to government standards? That’s a loophole so large we don’t know how to propose shutting it down! You can own any amount of ammo? Talk about dangerous loopholes.

The loophole myth is a seductive and pernicious tool used by ambitious power hungry people and groups who seek to rule over you. They want control over what you can do, and use the force of government, through “loophole” laws that regulate your behavior, requiring conformance to their ideals, for their purposes.

When it comes to the Second Amendment, loopholes are freedom personified. Efforts to close so-called loopholes do nothing but infringe upon rights you already have, and have typically had for centuries. If anyone uses the word loophole near you, they are using a sneaky myth to attack your rights. Cling to your guns, and make sure they’re loaded.

THE AUSTRALIA-MODEL MYTH

A pile of about 4,500 firearms that were handed over as part of Australia’s buyback. (Photo: David Gray/Reuters)

A pile of about 4,500 firearms that were handed over as part of Australia’s buyback. (Photo: David Gray/Reuters)

It’s hard to understand how anyone can, with straight face, say they support reasonable gun-control laws like Australia’s. It such a myth, right there on its face, it’s like Hillary saying on national TV during a debate she’s not part of the establishment. She was the First Lady for eight frickin’ years for Pete’s sake. The Secretary of State during multiple wars. A senator from New York. How much more establishment can you be? Who on Earth could possibly swallow that? (Apparently, plenty of people—democrats mostly—and sycophantic lapdog media dogs.)

Australia confiscated guns, by force, and destroyed them in public, on TV. This is not the definition of reasonable common-sense law, unless disarming the public is reasonable to you. And obviously some people think so. But if the Constitution is your baseline, and in this country it is, that activity is wildly radical, violates every principle America stands for, and for any media outlet or citizen to accept such activity as reasonable is myth-taken. Accept the end of America as the world has always known it.

THE JUNK-GUNS MYTH

Racism was the origin of gun-control laws in the United States, a well-established fact, with numerous books and treatises documenting the discriminatory antebellum efforts to keep freed slaves unarmed. Those racist gun laws persist to the present. Left-wing radicals seek to outlaw affordable guns, the domain frequently of poor people in desperate need of protection in inner cities, where expensive high-class firearms are simply out of reach financially. Elitists calling to ban weapons in affordable price ranges, vilify them as junk guns as if that justifies the effort.

A person who eats inexpensive food, drives an inexpensive car and wears inexpensive clothes is entitled to own an inexpensive gun.

For the longest while these were demeaned as Saturday Night Specials, a term that originated in the deep South, as “N-town” Saturday Night Specials, with the N-word dropped for political correctness. Attempts to ban these, for people of color in what we used to call ghettos, puts society’s most vulnerable at risk. It’s just one more myth piled high on the mountains of effort to disarm the public, by people living in glass houses, high on a hill in a gated community.

SEE ALSO: KORWIN: GUN MYTHS JUST KEEP COMING

SEE ALSO: KORWIN: AMERICA’S REAL GUN PROBLEM — THE PROGRESSIVE’S GUN MYTHS

###

Alan Korwin’s website GunLaws.com features plain-English books on your state and federal gun laws, and more common sense like you just read. Write to him or see his work on his site, where you can get any of his 14 books, and DVDs, that help keep you safe. Try After You Shoot to help lower your risk after a self-defense shooting, or get Your First Gun for your gunless friends.

{ 21 comments… add one }
  • Dave Hicks April 16, 2016, 7:45 am

    I have a friend ,that lives in Queensland Australia ,and he told me that they have most of their gun rights back.

    • Mel Rissler April 16, 2016, 7:03 pm

      I live in Australia,
      No self loading rifles or shotguns, no pump action shotguns,
      No pistols over 9mm.
      No barrel shorter than 5 inches.
      These are the restrictions we must live with,

  • Klaus Bjelan April 15, 2016, 10:42 pm

    You are exactly right. Tax loopholes are totally different. There is no “right to pay taxes” in the US constitution but there is a right to bear arms. I even think that is a joke on the basis that rights are generally things given and can be revoked. No f#cker has a right to tell any free human what he can and can not do/own/make as long as he does not harm another in the process.

  • Kivaari April 15, 2016, 3:06 pm

    Excellent commentary. People seeing the pile of classic sporting firearms getting destroyed in Australia and in the USA should remind them that it is not only military style battlefield weapons being destroyed but the guns your ancestors owned over 100 years ago. With nearly 300 million firearms in this country, there will be millions of them that go into hiding. That is also a WIN for the anti-gun crowd. If we bury our guns, they may as well not exist.

    • Aquaman71755 April 16, 2016, 11:33 am

      They may be hidden, buried etc for a short period of time but you will see a revolution at some point in time shortly after the gun grabbers come to take them. I for one will be at or near the front of the line to defend the constitution of the United States.

      • Frederick Gibson June 3, 2016, 6:44 pm

        I’ve been saying for several years now that Libs and Progs should volunteer
        to the ATF, IRS, USPS, BLM, et et, to help them cofis8-06r8l–collect all of
        the Firearms. They are many and will need the help. They can just walk
        up to our front doors with outstretched arms and I am sure they will get what
        they are asking for.

  • HellofromIllinois April 15, 2016, 10:14 am

    “Loophole: an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.”
    Generally speaking the word is used to refer to holes in laws that are exploited. I suppose that is “freedom” in some ways, but tax loopholes are just ways for the rich to avoid paying their fair share of taxes and there are other loopholes that end up allowing for forms of injustice. I think what you are really wanting to address are things labelled loopholes that are not actually loopholes but are purposely crafted exemptions to allow for logical exceptions and freedoms such as the ability for a grandfather to transfer an old shotgun to his grandson or two friends trading some handguns if all parties have no reason to believe that the other is prohibited from owning the item.

    • Archangel April 15, 2016, 6:11 pm

      Yep, he misrepresented the term “Loophole”.

    • Alan April 15, 2016, 8:10 pm

      The fact that you’ve bought into the “fair share” of taxes theme makes me highly skeptical of your opinion.
      You are already party indoctrinated.

  • George April 15, 2016, 8:15 am

    Glass houses high on a hill in a gated community, with armed guards at the gate for extra ironic flavor. Just so they can make sure the unarmed masses with their sticks and stones won’t stand a chance.

  • Gatorslayer April 15, 2016, 7:50 am

    Skeptical of your statement of the origin of the term, I looked up “Saturday Night Special” and found not only no corroboration, but actually the opposite. It appears the term originated in the North. Quit slamming the South!

    • sudon't April 15, 2016, 12:32 pm

      He may be thinking of the earlier form “Saturday-night pistol” which is attested from 1929, (Gill’s “Underworld Slang”). I don’t know if the term originated in the South, but this was certainly a time when hysteria was whipped up about “murderous, cocaine-crazed negroes” in an attempt to justify ever more oppressive Jim Crow laws. And it is certainly true that our country’s first anti-gun laws were promulgated in the South, by conservatives, to keep guns out of the hands of blacks and poor whites, so it makes sense that cheap handguns would be of particular concern.
      A lot of people, especially Liberals, seem to forget that gun rights were, up until about thirty-some years ago, a liberal cause. Liberals traditionally supported civil rights, of which gun ownership is one. I count myself a liberal, (yes, small “L”), which is why I support gun rights, along with all other civil rights, and I support the expansion of more rights for individuals. But I have lived long enough to see conservatives promoting civil rights, and liberals trying to curtail them. It seems that nowadays, people simply pick and choose which rights they support, and which they want to deny to others. People should have the right to live as they choose, as long as they’re not hurting others, or interfering with the rights of others to live as they choose. That’s what liberalism means.
      I suspect there are many here who are liberal without knowing it. I know there are Liberals who aren’t very liberal.

      • DaveW April 15, 2016, 2:31 pm

        Realize that, in the South during that era, the conservatives were the Democrats. It was Republicans who carried the day for equal rights for Blacks in Congress. As I recall, the ERA received 100% support from the Republican Party and 0% from the Democratic Party.

        • sudon't May 6, 2016, 4:38 pm

          Right, the Dixiecrats. They wanted to keep guns out of the hands of blacks and poor whites. Not that southern Republicans were especially liberal, post-Reconstruction.
          ERA? Did you mean the Civil Rights Act? If so, zero southern Republicans voted for it, and only seven southern Democrats voted for it in the House. It got one southern Republican vote, and one southern Democrat vote in the Senate. In the north, only a small percentage of Republicans voted for it, while northern Democrats overwhelmingly voted for it. The Civil Rights Act is the reason Dixiecrats flipped over to the Republican Party which, shall we say, was no longer the Party of Lincoln, and hadn’t been for some time. The South had been staunchly Democrat since the Civil War, for obvious historical reasons, but this all changed in the sixties when the northern Democrats decided to embrace civil rights, and the Republicans saw an opportunity to grab the segregationist vote.
          The ERA is another matter. Even feminists were split on that one, and it didn’t always fall neatly into a Democrat vs Republican dichotomy. In the end though, the Republican Party officially dropped its support for the bill in 1980.

      • DaveW April 15, 2016, 2:35 pm

        It’s too late for the Manchurian Candidate.

      • DaveW April 15, 2016, 2:51 pm

        I enlisted in the armed forces on 1 June 1967 for a number of reasons. One was that I felt I owed a debt to my country for the freedoms I enjoy. Another was that a president I admired had challenged me to ‘ask not what my country could do for me but ask what I could do for my country’. I, and millions like me, took an oath “to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic”, and put our very lives on the line to that end. We did not pledge our allegiance to party, POTUS, etc. There was never a question of doing so for a segment of our society. We did so for EVERY American citizen. There was never a question of which parts of the Constitution we would protect and defend. We were bound by an oath to defend EVERY part of it. We didn’t question what the Founders meant. Their words remain for us even today in their own writings, in journals, and in the minutes of the legislatures of the states. The authors were called upon to explain their words and intent to the states during the ratification process, and the Constitution was ratified based on their words.

        What is strange is that historically 80% of those who have served their country are conservatives while historically only about 10-15% of politicians have ever risked anything for their country.

  • Gary April 15, 2016, 6:39 am

    I couldn’t have said it better! Thank you.

  • Pseudomind April 15, 2016, 5:53 am

    I would recommend that many folks read few books and watch a few movies,
    1984 by George Orwell
    Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
    Citizenfour about the NSA

  • SuperG April 11, 2016, 12:31 pm

    A lot of media lapdogs have no choice but to obey their masters, if they want to get a paycheck. While our heads were down playing the latest version of Angry Birds, the media corporations consolidated, and the people kept playing. Now we have 4 mega-corporations who control 80% of the news. The reporters are told what to write, and if they don’t, they get replaced. It is that simple. So if you are a middle aged reporter with no job prospects, you become a hack and pander to whomever you master tells you to. Just look at all the cuckolds at Yahoo and you will see that I am right.

    • Jim April 15, 2016, 8:10 am

      You made me look that one up in the dictionary…….Thanks!

    • Steve G April 15, 2016, 10:46 am

      Voluntarily entering into an indentured servant arrangement as a writer is no excuse for spreading lies meant to deceive under-informed voting Americans. Nothing could be more un-American than that, particularly by one practicing a craft so defined by the First Amendment.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend