We do have a serious gun problem in America, and it’s that so many criminals do carry guns without the slightest fear that they will be stopped and frisked. They have no fear in New York City because the people decided that their right to not be stopped was greater than the need to take away their illegal gun, so they ended stop and frisk, and gun crime increased.

Democrats, and I assume people like Pell, think it will disarm the criminal if we pass more laws restricting gun ownership for the law abiding citizen. We did pass a ban on rifles that looked like assault rifles; in the ten years the ban was in effect, it had zero effect on crime. Criminals don’t obey laws.

What possible additional law can Chicago pass that would disarm their criminals, other than stop and frisk? Every weekend, dozens of people are shot there. The police know who are the young thugs and gangbangers likely to have guns in their pockets. Why is it not allowed to infringe their right against being searched? Why can’t we make criminal gangs illegal? We can’t target criminals, but we can target law abiding gun owners. If the Second Amendment is not an absolute right, why is membership in MS-13 an absolute right? Who is a greater scourge in this country, law abiding gun owners or criminal gangs and drug lords? The rights of the criminal element are absolute, but the rights of the law abiding are conditional.

Some of the proposals might actually be constructive, but they are never presented alone in a bill, where they would pass; they are always wrapped in a blanket of restrictions that will accomplish nothing except satisfy the Left’s desire to eliminate gun ownership by small, incremental steps. The Left does this knowing that the bill will never pass because it reaches too far, and they would rather have the issue than take even one step of reform.