With the horror of Newtown, Connecticut and the deaths of twenty children (and the six adults who were trying to protect those children) fresh in the public’s mind, the Progressive gun control machine has gone to work in yet another attempt to limit the rights of Americans to own firearms.
No feeling human being can help but wish that there was some way to prevent any recurrence of those murders, but no thinking human being can believe that total prevention is possible.
Once again Progressives and other anti-gun activists are blaming the access to guns as the main culprit in this tragedy even though it can be seen that a gun ban will never end the possession and use of guns in this country.
In the past our nation has legislated outright bans on drugs, abortions and pornography as well as the sale and consumption of alcohol. So, how well did those bans work? Our citizens simply ignored many of those laws, with the Era of Prohibition being the most glaring example.
So if the existing legislated limitations on the right to own or carry a gun were ignored, exactly what would the government do? Apparently the best thing that our political class can imagine is to draft another gun control law or re-implement a law which had already been shown to be ineffective.
Adam Lanza, the alleged assailant, ignored all existing gun control laws. You (and big government statists) might ask, “How could that be?” The answer is quite simple, actually. Mr. Lanza essentially stole the guns that he used. He was saved all the trouble of filling out forms, having his background checked, having to pay large amounts of money to the government for permits, licenses and fees, and, in this case, delivery was fast and cost free. All and all a good deal for Mr. Lanza. Not so good for the twenty-seven human beings that were the targets of whatever demons drove Mr. Lanza.
The point is that regardless of what laws have been passed, and regardless of how strenuously they are enforced, the only way that the government, any government, can remove guns is to confiscate them and close down all legal means of acquiring any firearm.
Gun control advocates claim that even an action as extreme as confiscation would, at least, eliminate the kind of mass murder that occurred at that Connecticut elementary school.
John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Andrei Chikatilo
I submit that John Wayne Gacy murdered half again as many children and never used a gun in the process. Of course Gacy killed his 33 victims over a six year period of time, not all at once, so I suppose that makes him less of a mass murderer and more of a serial killer. Would stronger gun control laws have prevented those 33 deaths?
Ted Bundy killed at least 30 young women over a period of four years, and he never used a gun either.
There has always been a nearly complete ban on firearms in the former Soviet Union, yet Andrei Chikatilo murdered 52 women and children between 1978 and 1990.
But Gacy, Bundy and Chikatilo apparently have no bearing on the idea that mass murder would be eliminated if we, as a society, could just get rid of the guns.
What utter rubbish!
And can any rational person actually believe that criminals would not be able to acquire guns if they were banned? Such a prohibition on guns would result in exactly the same response that occurred when alcohol was prohibited – the criminals would get their guns from other criminals. I feel fairly sure that a few more urbane criminals in the Mexican and Columbian drug cartels would be tempted to send a thank you note to the members of Congress and the Obama administration for providing them with a new source of income over-and-above their current revenue from drug sales.
Can anyone believe that the illicit importation of illegal firearms would be stopped by Janet Napolitano’s “virtual” border fence? When you consider the tons of drugs that seem to seep through that border along with the millions of illegal immigrants who meander into our country as if they were on a guided tour, does the idea that our government could effectively eliminate the smuggling of guns seem reasonable?
In addition to such professional criminals, how many currently law-abiding citizens would actually become criminals by surreptitiously acquiring guns from the same source as the professional criminal. The only difference would be in the purpose of buying that gun. The professional would purchase a gun to commit crimes (including murder) while the private citizen would buy a gun to prevent the professional criminal from being successful (at least on the personal level).
Finally the debate over gun control has little or nothing to do with the ideas that are bandied about concerning the Constitutional right to bear arms. The anti-gun crowd, and I include our President as one of them, always couch the argument to say that they aren’t trying to take guns away from those who enjoy hunting or sport shooting. They seem to imply that the reason the 2nd Amendment was drafted was to protect the right to shoot a deer.
Once again, I must say Rubbish!
The 2nd Amendment was drafted not to protect Americans from the danger of food shortages, but the danger of a shortage of freedom.
The founders were very clear in their view of why the right to bear arms was essential to the freedom that was so dearly won during the American Revolution. I give you three founders, and how they viewed the issue:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government” — Thomas Jefferson
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good” — George Washington
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” – Alexander Hamilton
This from the men who risked their lives, founded the nation, and supported the Constitution and its Amendments. Must more actually be said?
Originally published at Canada Free Press