We’re told by our rulers that guns must be outlawed, in order to eliminate violence. What they don’t tell us is how taking guns away from nonviolent people will help end the crime of violent people. Criminals, by definition, have no regard for the law. Why does it matter that they must obtain their guns illegally? How is this supposed to stop them?
We’re also not told how guns being outlawed will work out, in practice. Obama seems to recognize that he cannot pass such legislation in Congress. Like the dictator he is, he is having his vice president tell the American people, “We’ll pass it by executive order.” Why do we have multiple branches of government? Is the Constitution dead? Is it operative only when Obama feels it suits his purposes, and when it doesn’t — he does what he wants?
We’re told that Obama wants lawfulness to rule in society. That’s why he wants guns to go away. How is ignoring the Constitutional requirement to actually pass a law before imposing it lawful behavior? Is it really madness for some to start speaking of secession when the Constitution already appears to be dead, according to the actions of our own President?
Once Obama presumably issues his directive to outlaw guns, what will current legal gun owners actually do? Will they become criminals overnight? We’re told that the NRA is the root of all evil. What’s ignored is that the NRA exists because of the donations of millions of people who want to protect their right to own a gun, which means: their right to defend themselves against violence, if necessary. If the NRA is evil and therefore the government should be allowed to take drastic action to override them, then aren’t the millions who support them likewise evil? Are they to be jailed, as well?
We’re led to believe, by the experts in academia and Washington D.C. who — although not widely respected — are generally not questioned, that outlawing guns will lead to less violence, or at least no more horrific violence such as school shootings. Isn’t this the same as claiming that outlawing drugs will lead to no, or at least less, drug addiction? If that’s the case, why does the federal government spend billions a year in “drug wars” which probably puts a dent in a tiny amount of the supply of drugs, and has done nothing to reduce the demand of those drugs by millions who want them? Shouldn’t our rulers at least have to go through the motions of answering this question before imposing yet another directive on us?
It’s claimed by more moderate-sounding voices that, “They’re only going to outlaw assault weapons — not regular guns.” Will someone please explain the distinction? Isn’t any weapon — a knife, a slingshot even — an “assault weapon” in the hands of a criminal? And isn’t any weapon a means of self-defense in the hands of a peaceful person? Why is this distinction ignored, and why does it not matter? Why do those of us who plead for clarity on this point get referred to as “hateful” and “advocates of violence”? I don’t like violence. I want it stamped out as much as possible. I want guns to be used — by legitimate law enforcers, as well as by innocent citizens, when law enforcement is not available — to end violence, not to increase it. Why are my motives in opposition to gun control attacked as evil, while the motives of those who want to outlaw guns for the peaceful majority are never called into question?
Why do we have so little faith in government to properly prosecute and punish violent offenders — perhaps more sternly than we do at present — while we grant total trust and faith to the government to make sure that guns never get into criminals’ hands? This is the unspoken premise of outlawing guns. Haven’t you noticed that the politicians most confident of government’s ability to keep guns away from criminals are the same ones confident of government’s ability to provide quality health care for all, run the auto industry, control the currency, manage the national debt and balance the budget? In what universe do we expect a government that cannot do any of these other things — including even pass a budget — to competently end violence against innocent people by confiscating guns from the population?
If Americans turned their freedom and liberty over to the government based on wrong-headed principles, that would be bad enough. But to watch the government — via executive order — remove perhaps one of the last individual liberties left to a once free people with no reaction but the vacant stare of unthinking indifference is a very difficult thing to watch. As important as the right of self-defense is, the even greater issue at stake is: By what right does a President obliterate constitutional, individual rights by executive order? And what kind of people let him get away with it?
Obama’s attack on gun ownership is bigger than it seems, and it’s about much more than guns. It may be individual liberty’s last stand in the United States.
Dr Michael Hurd
Latest posts by Dr Michael Hurd (see all)
- Bill Nye: The Tyrant Guy - 2016.04.20
- Europe Sacrifices Free Speech for Political Correctness - 2016.04.10
- Bill Clinton Exposes The Hypocrisy Of “Black Lives Matter” Protestors - 2016.04.09
- Acts of War in Europe: Brussels Takes Another Hit From Radical Islam - 2016.03.22
- Trump Is Not Responsible for Violence Against Him - 2016.03.16