Following the evil campus shooting in Roseburg, OR, earlier this
month, politicians immediately called for tougher gun laws, and a lot of
comments on social media and news sites demanded an outright confiscation of
all guns, even legally owned ones. To those calling for an unarmed America, I
can only say, be careful what you wish for.
For all the gun laws already on the books in America, it’s not clear
what new law would prevent a criminal intent on violence from committing such
acts. It may be a cliché, but by definition, criminals don’t obey laws.
We could enact a thousand more laws only to diminish law-abiding
citizens’ access to legal gun ownership, either because regulations make it too
hard to get a gun, or because crippling regulations drive gun and ammunition
manufacturers and retailers out of business.
Criminals, of course, would still obtain guns smuggled through the
black market or other illegal means, creating a frightening imbalance between
the armed and unarmed. And who do you think a criminal would feel more
comfortable targeting, the defenseless victim, or the armed citizen? Anti-gun
proponents say that’s what the police are for – to protect the endangered
citizen confronted with violence -- but, as the saying goes, when seconds
count, the police are minutes away.
Some are advocating laws to make it more difficult for the mentally
ill to obtain guns. Nobody would disagree with this. The problem is, we often
don’t know someone is mentally ill until they go on a rampage.
And while it is common sense that a mentally unstable person should
not have a gun, the concern is, who decides what is considered mentally
unstable? Expanding gun control under a “mental health” umbrella could easily
open the gates toward allowing legislators to include all sorts of traits
deemed unacceptable for gun ownership, just like how the Department of Homeland
Security lists people like veterans and pro-lifers as potential terrorists and
extremists.
Just as suffocating regulations can threaten gun & ammo
manufacturers’ existence, this medical backdoor method could advance anti-gun
politicians’ goal to diminish gun ownership without even having to mention the
Second Amendment, let alone attempt to change it in any way.
But what if all private, law-abiding citizens were stripped of their
guns, as some are advocating. Would that be a good thing for America? Not if
history is any indication.
Presidential candidate, Dr. Ben Carson, caught a lot of flak
recently for reminding us of what happened in Nazi Germany. In his new book, A Perfect Union, Carson contends,
“Through a combination of removing guns and disseminating propaganda, the Nazis
were able to carry out their evil intentions with relatively little
resistance.”
He defended that argument on national
television, saying, “I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish
his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed. I’m
telling you there is a reason these dictatorial people take guns first.”
In its condemnation of Carson, the
Anti-Defamation League actually proved Carson’s point when ADL National
Director Jonathan Greenblatt said, "The small number of personal firearms
available to Germany’s Jews in 1938 could in no way have stopped the
totalitarian power of the Nazi German state.” Exactly. Perhaps if they hadn’t
been stripped of their weapons, the persecuted may have had a fighting chance. The
same goes for the students recently targeted in Oregon. Had it not been a
gun-free zone, maybe the shooter would have met resistance, or been afraid to
try in the first place.
Another well-documented
look at how the Nazi regime used gun control to disarm and repress its enemies
and consolidate power can be found in Stephen Halbrook’s book, Gun Control in the Third Reich.
In it, Halbrook notes,
“A skeptic could surmise that a better-armed populace might have made no
difference, but the National Socialist regime certainly did not think so — it
ruthlessly suppressed firearm ownership by disfavored groups.”
One thing that protects
America from dictatorship is precisely the fact that we are an armed citizenry.
Considering not only Hitler, but
Mao Tse-tung, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and other dictators in history were
assisted in gaining control by reducing citizens’ access to weapons, we’d be
naïve to think the same could not happen here were we to significantly disarm
the populace. As Mao Tse-tung said, “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be
used to command the party.”
In a perfect world, it
would be great if we had no need for weapons or if we could believe that
government officials looking to curtail our possession of guns was for our own
good, as Hillary Clinton has promised to do should she become president. But
it’s not a perfect world. Besides
dictatorships, other evil exists. Just look at ISIS, for example, which
promises to strike America.
Look also
at our increasingly immoral culture, the devaluing of human life, and the bizarre
trend of desiring fame, as the Oregon shooter himself said he was seeking. Now
is not the time to disarm honest citizens. If anything, it is time
instead to focus our efforts on renewing the culture through a return to faith
and morals.
What do you think? Click on the comments link in the bar below to
share your thoughts. No registration necessary.
If more people had common sense like this, we'd be much better off, to say the least.
ReplyDeleteCan anyone tell me how to tell the difference between a good guy with a gun and a bad guy with a gun? The one who isn't pointing it at you?
ReplyDeleteCan anyone tell me how to tell the difference between a good guy with a gun and a bad guy with a gun? The one who isn't pointing it at you?
ReplyDeleteNo, the good guy with the gun is the one who doesn't even pull his gun out until the bad guy pulls his out and starts shooting innocent people up. Ask Dylann Roof and the Louisiana theater shooters - they BOTH said they had originally picked other places to target until they found out concealed weapons were allowed there, so they BOTH then chose "gun free" zones to do their disgusting work. It's complete common sense that you don't seem to want to accept.
Delete