The anti-gun bigots have taken off their gloves. No more calls for “reasonable, common-sense” gun laws. Now they’re going for the brass ring — confiscation.
Huffpost ran an article to that effect and so did the paper of record.
The NTY editorialized, on the FRONT page:
“It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition. It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.”
Saying that the needed legislation should not “grandfather” the 300,000,000 firearms currently in America, they went on to say:
“[I]t would require Americans who own these kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.“
I fail to understand how violating the rights of citizens can possibly be good for the society made up of those citizens. Besides which, anyone thinking people would be better off disarmed need look no further than Paris to see how much good France’s stringent anti-gun laws were “good for their citizens.” Heck, the editor of that magazine whose offices were assaulted had his bodyguard with him but the bodyguard was disarmed for the good of his fellow citizens.
Backers of confiscation proposals are the first to decry any suggestion to treat Muslims differently based on who they are but have no problem at all treating gun owners differently based on who they are. And not just in a minor way, but to essentially deny a constitutionally-protected right completely.
And this is why I refer to the anti-gunners as bigots. They have singled out a group of people for discrimination based on who they are instead of what they have done.
“We shouldn’t paint all Muslims as terrorists just because a few are.” But it’s okay to assume that each and every gun owner is a mass murderer just awaiting his turn.
At least now those who claim that confiscation has not been the plan all along can no longer deny it.
There is no logic or reason among anti-gunners. They continue to believe that “The best defense is .. no defense.”
In response to this last statement, that leftists believe in no defense, one critic asked: “Are you saying that people would still be being shot if there were no guns?”
I answered:
No, of course not. I’m saying that people would still be getting shot if guns were prohibited.
- I’m saying that any country that cannot keep millions of people and hundreds of tons of illicit drugs from illegally entering the country cannot possibly prevent the entry of illegal guns.
- I’m saying that a complete prohibition is unenforceable.
- I’m saying that “if there were no guns” is fantasy.
- I’m saying that even if every law-abiding citizen willingly turned in his/her guns, the professional criminals would not.
- I’m saying the odds that each and every citizen would willingly turn in his/her guns is extremely low.
- I’m saying that a ban on firearms and confiscation thereof would necessarily destroy what little is left of the Bill Of Rights.
- I’m saying that taking away “everyone’s” guns will just embolden the strong to prey on the weak. Crime would skyrocket.
- I’m saying that taking away “everyone’s” guns would lead to a civilization where the most violent and ruthless would tyrannize their neighbors.
- I’m saying that people are obsessed with “gun violence” instead of violence. They ignore root causes and pick on the tools of the violent.
- I’m saying that violence will not go away just because you remove one tool of the violent.
- I’m saying that in disarming everyone, you remove the ability of the lame and the frail, the weak to defend themselves against the strong.
- I’m saying that, demonstrably, gun control does more harm than good.
- I’m saying that those espousing gun prohibitions and confiscation clearly have not thought the idea through.
- I’m saying that the problem is not that “guns are too easy to get”. Guns were far easier to get before 1968 when you could buy guns at the hardware store or Western Auto.
- I’m saying that the great vast majority of guns will never be used in crime, but certain people seem to have a phobia where guns are concerned.
- I’m saying that my rights should not be violated to assuage someone’s phobia.
- I’m saying that there’s a sound historical basis for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms being specifically protected in the Constitution.
- I’m saying that in the 20th century, more people were killed killed by their own governments than by all the wars, criminals and terrorists combined and that governments all over the world want a monopoly on power ostensibly to protect their citizens but actually to protect themselves.
- I’m saying that gun prohibitions are a necessary precursor to genocide.
- I’m saying that “gun control” is not about guns, it’s about control.
But I’m definitely not saying “that people would still be being shot if there were no guns”. That would be just silly.