It’s all coming to a head! Of recent, several battles have been won in the courts by those in the Pro-Second Amendment camp regarding –concealed carry, –how and where you can defend yourself, and that –the Individual has the implicit Right to self-defense wherever they are; but apparently, those victories are still not enough. The debate has been between those who want the central (federal) government to assume more control over property that does not belong to them (firearms), even if that means Infringing on the Second Amendment — and those who own firearms and are not inclined to surrender their Second Amendment Rights. The debate has turned into an argument of people, one of which – believes what they choose to believe despite logic, reason, or law, whether it’s about handguns, shotguns, or rifles. They are so confused, that instead of starting with the guns that cause most drama (cheap handguns), the anti-gun types choose to go after the firearms that cause the least drama (contemporary-technology rifles). Instead of going after the people responsible for 100% of gun crimes (criminals), the anti-gun types choose to go after the people who cause ZERO gun crimes (law-abiding people). Obviously, it’s how firearms look to people who have little-to-no experience with firearms that makes them ban-able… Especially if those firearms look all tactical, versatile, war-like, evil, and black. So what does the fact that this debate continues, mean? It means that logic and reason DO NOT matter anymore and emotion is all they’ve got. With that said; There is absolutely no reason to argue any longer.
People opposed to the Second Amendment, either believe that (1) government should be trusted to protect all of us individually, 24-hours a day, (2) that people should NOT be able to protect themselves, (3) that we should all bow to government’s whims, OR they must believe (4) that the Second Amendment no longer applies. I won’t waste my time explaining that government (no government) is to be blindly trusted because every government that has EVER existed on Planet Earth grew in size, grew corrupt, and then got overthrown. I won’t waste my time explaining that the Second Amendment was NEVER meant to ensure the right of people to hunt or to shoot for sport (of which, there were no such thing as sport-shooting when the 2nd Amendment was written). I can even imply that if you think the Second Amendment is no longer relevant, then the First Amendment (which was written at the same time), is also subject to being declared, no longer relevant. But as I said, none of this matters any longer. It seems as though government (and anti-gun types) are practically hoping for violent incidents to occur so that they can use those incidents to justify a ban on an ever growing pool of firearms, just as occurred in Australia and Great Britain.
But here’s an idea for you!
If you want to ban certain types of guns… Amend the Constitution already! Go ahead! In America’s past the Constitution was Amended several times, including to ban Alcohol. Surely if you can do that, you can make a Constitutional Amendment to ban certain, scary types of firearms. If you Amend the Constitution, you can even require all Americans to merely turn their firearms in. You can end the debate and require anyone who owns a 30-round magazine; or a handgun, to surrender them or become a Felon. Do it! I dare you to take that action. Why Bull$#!t this issue any longer? Put your money (and cajones) where your mouth and intentions are!
Now obviously, anti-firearms types won’t do that. Those who pushed for Prohibition, were far more gutsy than those who are currently pushing to ban or “control” certain types of firearms. Those pushing to ban firearms know that they’ll have a horrendous fight on their hands… and to make it worse, they recognize that they’ll be picking a fight against people with guns! And that is never advisable unless you have just as many (or more) guns on your side and you’re just as well trained. Yea! The people who are on the side of the Second Amendment have the advantage on both of those counts. Many gun owners are also veterans, law enforcement, and have been shooting for decades. And with estimates of more than 250,000,000 guns out there — even if that is only distributed amongst an estimated 150,000,000 individual gun owners. A (federal) government has a big problem. Its 4.6 million employees (less than 200,000 of which are gun-toting, Law Enforcement types), and our 2.3-million person military (the vast majority of which are support forces and not combatants) would not be enough in an EXTREMELY REMOTE, DISTANT, DISTOPIAN scenario to collect the firearms of those who will not turn them-in. But many amongst both those groups will NOT fight other Americans over confiscating firearms, because they themselves are amongst Americas gun owners, and they believe in the Second Amendment. Government would be severely outgunned.
A Firearms Prohibition?
Whether they realize it or not, some Anti-Second Amendment Americans are dreaming of a firearms prohibition. Curiously, they tend to be the same people opposed to an Alcohol prohibition (and they are oddly, supportive of ending the marijuana prohibition). As such, they don’t see their glaring hypocrisy with any Prohibition of firearms. But when alcohol was prohibited, it is worth noting that alcohol was not a Constitutional Right… and even still, people ignored government and killed government employees (Revenuers, Police, Deputies)… OVER ALCOHOL! Do you believe more or less people will follow an Amendment to ban firearms (which is a Constitutional Right)? Sure, there will be some people who follow the type of law that requires them to surrender their firearms, perhaps, but millions-upon-millions will NOT. You’ll have to send people in to collect and/or seize them. Imagine government attempting to identify and locate millions of possible rouge gun-owners who will not turn in their firearms? Think back to any manhunt you’ve ever seen where it takes dozens, or hundreds of police, searching for one individual (like Eric Matthew Frein or Christopher Dorner). Just as in Alcohol Prohibition, there will be unintended consequences. It is safe to assume that many of the people who will not accept a Firearms Prohibitions are Libertarian, Conservative, or conservative-leaning. Looking at a map of those counties that voted for presidents like Reagan, Bush, Other Bush, or even Clinton or Obama, gives you an idea of how monumental the task of minimizing the Second Amendment, or firearms ownership in America, will be.
Many Americans believe, and/or accept, that there will necessarily be conflict that will arise between the United States government and citizens of the United States because government must constantly be reminded that they are a threat to freedom — and that they (government AND ITS EMPLOYEES) are not the boss’, lords, or Monarch over every American CITIZEN. It is a reminder of that quote by Thomas Jefferson regarding,“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time-to-time…”
So politicians/government; Stop wasting time talking about “Gun Control“, and Amend the Constitution if you want to. Good luck with that. And may any future prohibition of firearms be as effective as the Prohibition of alcohol was…