Leftist Congressman Chris Jacobs (R-NY) is not returning for another term - but he is leaving with one final raise of the proverbial middle finger to you and your right to self-defense.
As Lia Lando “reports” for WKBW, Buffalo:
“Congressman Chris Jacobs wants more to be done to prevent another mass shooting like the one at Tops on Jefferson Avenue in Buffalo on May 14th. Monday he introduced the Federal Assault Weapons Licensing Act. It calls for stricter regulations for those who want to purchase a high-powered weapons.”
All of which is a paragraph that assumes a lot.
First, it assumes that Jacobs actually DOES want to prevent another mass shooting. That might appear crass, but, logically, it’s important to bring up her assumption. Charitably, one can assume that he does, but a journalist is not supposed to make such an assumption, and only is supposed to report on what Jacobs says or does.
Second, his opposition to self-defense with a firearm, such as the aforementioned bogeyman the “high-powered weapon,” not only doesn’t tell us what constitutes a “high-powered weapon," but indicates that Jacobs is not familiar with the fact that the unconstitutional gun-grabbing and purchase-blocking statutes already on the books have not stopped mass shooters. It also indicates that he is unaware of the fact that crunched data (you’ll find many citations and studies in John Lott’s excellent book, “More Guns, Less Crime”), and even U.S. government stats, repeatedly show a strong correlation between increased gun ownership and lower incidences of violent crime.
And, of course, Mr. Jacobs also seems to be unaware that he not only swore an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, the Second Amendment of which strictly prohibits any level of government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, but also that, even IF the Constitution allowed such an infringement, the attempt to threaten people who want to buy a gun is, itself, an immoral threat of gun violence, regardless of the purported goal.
Adds Lando:
“The legislation includes a new licensing system, a mandatory safety course, fingerprinting, a background check and much more. Anyone who owns an assault weapon at the time of enactment would be grandfathered in.
There are exemptions to the bill including those who already own an assault weapon, active-duty military and law enforcement officers and more.”
How magnanimous of him.
Related: Intellectual Ammunition: Mythology v Facts of 'Gun Control' | MRCTV
To be more specific, let’s turn to Max Faery, reporter for WBEN 930 radio, out of Buffalo, who writes that this bill, which still has not even appeared in full online:
“…would require all those purchasing a semi-automatic assault weapon to go through an extensive background checks, get fingerprinted and take a firearms safety training course as well as a $130 processing fee to the Department of Justice. Licenses would have to be renewed every 5 years.”
And he adds:
“The other exemptions include people without a license, if accompanied by a license holder, would be allowed to use semi-automatic weapons at shooting ranges or when they are hunting. People would also be allowed to use them without a license in an attempt to protect others from death or serious injury."
Again, how nice of Jacobs to deem some of us worthy of his PERMISSION to do what God granted us inherent rights to do.
And, get this, Jacobs claims that his bill ATTACKING the right to keep and bear arms – the right that is supposed to be protected by the Second Amendment -- actually is a way to protect the Second Amendment!
Faery included this whopper from Jacobs:
"This bill, I believe, is a common sense piece of legislation designed as a compromise to ensure Second Amendment rights are protected, while also putting additional safety protections in place to stop the wrong people from obtaining assault weapons.”
Jacobs claims he crafted this bill after speaking with rifle owners and finding their concerns lacking. He said, as Faery reports:
"I spent a lot of time talking with people in the Second Amendment community about why they were uncomfortable with any additional regulation on an assault weapon and their arguments, to me, just did not ring true as to why there shouldn't be any requirements and something that is so lethal and was designed for military purposes to kill a lot of people quickly."
How about the above info, or the fact that you, Mr. Jacobs, have no God-given right to infringe on their God-given right to acquire said devices? How about the fact that, by trying to pass such legislation, you are, by definition, placing yourself in the position of an aggressor, a person engaging in threats, backed by, oh… agents of the state armed with guns that can kill a lot of people quickly…?
Before Mr. Jacobs leaves his cushy Washington office and gets his cushy tax-funded pension and pats himself on the back some more, lets ask him to answer these simple questions.
One. Is the possession of an object a aggressively violent act?
The answer, Mr. Jacobs, is, NO.
Two. Does possession connote intent?
The answer is, of course, NO. One cannot know the reasons why another person possesses something. To assume one knows is to adopt omniscience counter to the human condition, an arrogance fit only for despots and thieves.
Three. Are firearms used more for aggressive attacks, or for self-defense?
As the study known as the 1995 National Self-Defense Survey showed, Americans use firearms far, far more often to stop crimes than to engage in them. And, as I reported in 2018:
“Civilians also stop criminals more often than police do. As police will tell you, they usually arrive after a criminal has committed a crime. Police are not the true ‘first responders’. That’s a dangerous myth that needs to be expunged from the contemporary lexicon, but it will hang on, because politicians and pop media people adore it.”
And, before we part ways for a bit, let’s ask outgoing Congressman Jacobs one more question:
With such a clear and obvious lack of principles, sir, why did you ever think it would be a good idea to enter Congress?
Perhaps because you’d fit in with the vast majority of the others there?
Related: (Not So) Shocking Study: Gun Ownership Leads to Lower Burglary Rates | MRCTV