Firearm Manufacturers Refuse to Sell Guns To Police

The gun makers are bringing out their biggest ‘guns’, by refusing to sell to police, cities, counties and states that are making noises about reducing gun violence. By their action, they are actually siding with the gun control folks, who want LESS guns sold overall, not more. 

In just two weeks, the number of gun makers refusing to sell to basically ANYONE who is ‘against’ them increased from 34 to over 100. Maybe the gun control advocates can celebrate a victory of sorts, as the gun manufacturers go out peacefully, without selling a gun or firing a shot at anyone. 
In the Bush era the doctrine was; “anyone not with us is against us”. This means that many states are now considered the ‘enemy’ by the gun lobby and over 100 gun manufacturers. It seems odd that states with gun manufacturers inside of their borders can now no longer purchase those same weapons made within their borders, but maybe this is a good thing. Selling fewer or no more guns to  select groups is better than selling more guns to everyone.
Rather than seeing efforts to reduce gun violence and work on reducing the 30,000 gun deaths caused by their products as a positive thing, which might sustain their long range viability, the gun lobby and the gun manufacturers see any effort to reduce violence through gun licensing, education, ammo restrictions, as ‘too extreme’ in terms of Constitutional rights.

The Constitution provides many freedoms and rights, but even within those rights and freedoms, everyone still has to do things for the good of the public, otherwise known as the ‘commons’. What are those things?

We are required to register, license and insure any vehicles that we choose to drive and operate.

We are required to go through an education class and pass a test to get a license to drive any vehicle. In part, we require these things to protect the public and the ‘commons’. Would you allow someone to drive without insurance, and without taking a test and a drivers education class?  In case of accident, everyone is covered by insurance, which pays for any damage or harm caused even after the education and classes.

Guns are much more dangerous than any vehicle, so why is there no education, no insurance, and no registration required for any gun, including military style assault rifles that can kill hundreds of people with clips that can shoot 100 rounds in a few seconds?

We provide our citizenship ID to cross any border. This proof of citizenship costs money annually plus we have to ‘qualify’ to get a citizenship paper, which proves we have access to our ‘rights’ and ‘freedoms’. No one is screaming and yelling about having to register to get this proof of citizenship.

To get access to Social Security, we have to ‘register’ and provide payment annually. No one is yelling and screaming about having to register and provide proof to gain access to Social Security. Everyone pays into Social Security as well, if they are employed.

We provide our insurance card to get service at hospitals and pay by the month plus provide ID for access to this.

To rent a movie, we have to show ID, pay money and tell someone our address and phone number.

To join a gym, we have to pay monthly, provide our ID and in return, we get a membership card.

Yet somehow, the gun lobby and gun manufacturers refuse any of the above around guns, despite the fact that guns can kill many more people than any vehicle, movie rental or exercise club.

Guns and lead ammunition are much more hazardous than most toxic waste, but no EPA or other licenses are required.

No registration at all is required to own a whole arsenal of weapons, millions of rounds of ammo and clips that can fire a hundred rounds at a time. Even the initial registration to be approved is destroyed eventually, leaving no records at all.

Even mentally ill people who have violent tendencies can buy and own guns.

No education of any kind is required to own a gun, despite a gun being able to kill many dozens of people, compared to a vehicle.

No insurance is required, despite huge liabilities created by owning and having a loaded gun in the house.

None of this makes any logical sense, does it? 

The original Constitution includes the ‘right’ to own slaves, bar women from voting, counting blacks as only 1/2 vote, and much more. 
The Constitution is not an absolute BIBLE that must be followed for all time. It is subject to change as the country evolves and gets more ‘mature’. The Constitution changed quite a bit over time, through a process of Amendments. 
The Thirteenth Amendment (1865) abolishes slavery and authorizes Congress to enforce abolition. The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) in part, defines a set of guarantees for United States citizenship. The Fifteenth Amendment (1870) prohibits the federal government and the states from using a citizen’s race, color, or previous status as a slave as a qualification for voting. The Nineteenth Amendment (1920) prohibits the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen the right to vote due to her sex. The Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971) prohibits the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen of age 18 or greater the right to vote on account of his or her age…..

The Corwin Amendment, sent to the states on March 2, 1861, would have forbidden any attempt to subsequently amend the Constitution to empower the federal government to “abolish or interfere” with the practice of slavery. The Confederacy ignored it and it was quickly forgotten. Instead, in 1865 the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. So we can see that as society evolves and matures, it can choose to ignore the Constitution in parts where it no longer serves the greater good of society and all people in it. 

Maybe our society needed to have everyone carry guns back in the wild west days… but now we are a country that is over 200 years old. We have matured from a young teen into an adult, or so we can hope. Adults can work things out without resorting to guns and killing people at the first sign of disagreement.