YouTube
1) What kind of guns will you refuse to ban?
 |
| "Assault Weapon" Bans Leave Rifles With Identical Capabilities Untouched |
Well, they will still be used in mass shootings - because there are still millions in private hands. So, you decide to confiscate all of these rifles. You have learned your lesson: Bans of new sales accomplish nothing. From now on banned guns must be confiscated.
Assuming that you could actually get rid of all of them (trust me, you can't), then someone will simply use a semi-auto rifle that is not classed as an "assault weapon" to commit a mass shooting. Remember, they have identical capabilities - so the death toll will be no lower. So, at that point, you must take the next logical step and ban all semi-auto long guns. What will happen then?
Well, you then will notice that mass shootings are still happening - because semi-auto handguns are still legal. So, you decide that all of these firearms must be confiscated too. Again, let's assuming that you can do the impossible and confiscate all the semi-auto handguns. What will happen then?
Well, that won't stop mass shootings either - because someone will use a pump action shotgun and/or one or more revolvers. The death toll will not be lowered for many reasons. For instance, a pump shotgun (or a lever action rifle) can be topped up without losing the ability to fire - even for an instant. Their rate of fire is nearly the same is a semi-auto firearm. In fact, the Navy Yard mass murderer used a simple, pump action shotgun to kill 12 and wound 8. Revolvers can be fired nearly as fast as semi-auto handguns, and it is easy to carry more than one. So, even if you could ban all the other guns (and actually get all of them) revolvers would still be used. So, you have to ban them too. Again, we will make the absurd assumption that you actually are able to get all of them. What will happen then?
Notice how fast these firearms, all pre-1900 models
that are manually operated, can be fired.
Well, you guessed it, there will still be mass shootings. Why? Because some guns are still legal. The reality is that when the people you want to kill are unarmed, it doesn't take much in the way of a firearm to murder many of them. Don't believe me? Well, after all of the above measures were taken in the UK, they still had a public mass shooting that killed 12 and wounded 11. The weapons? A .22 bolt action rifle and a double barreled shotgun. Will you then ban all firearms? That was even too much for the UK. It's easy to see why gun owners, who generally know more about guns than gun control advocates, believe that banning any firearm is a slippery slope that will eventually end in the banning of all firearms. Indeed, honest gun control advocates admit that without the confiscation of most firearms, gun control will be completely ineffective. When Nancy Pelosi was asked about currently discussed gun laws being a slippery slope, she said, "I hope it is."
Mike Beliveau, whose focus is primarily firearms from the mid-1800s, makes this point well in this video:
So, given that I have just demonstrated that banning only a few guns will not eliminate mass shootings, my question still stands: What guns are you willing to stop at? What guns will you allow us to keep? Where will you stop?
2) Will you repeal the 2nd Amendment or just ignore it?
Most gun control advocates have no clue what the 2nd Amendment protects, because they have never read any of the case law. They simply accept as fact what they have been told: The 2nd Amendment presents no problem for gun control. However, this simply is not the case.At the core of the Heller decision is the "common use test". The purpose of this test is, first and foremost to insure that the people, not the government, determine which firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment. Obviously, if the federal or state government could determine what arms are protected, the 2nd Amendment would effectively protect nothing. That is why SCOTUS established, in Heller, this test: Is the firearm in question in common use for lawful purposes?
Now, we could argue about so called assault weapons, and if they are protected or not (they almost certainly are because they are definitely in common use) - but we need not do that. We already learned that any gun control that would be in any way effective would have to involve banning and confiscating both most firearms and most types of firearms. Sooner or later, maybe in regards to so called assault weapons, maybe in regards to semi-auto handguns, you are going to come up against the 2nd Amendment. At that point, you have those two choices: Repeal it or simply defy it.
Repeal is a political impossibility. Yes, there have been calls for this, but it only takes 13 states to block such a repeal. This is not going to happen.
So that leaves simply defying it. This can be done by getting lower courts to just ignore the precedents SCOTUS has set - at least as long as you think it might take to round up all the guns. You could simply do what Pres. Andrew Jackson did when the Supreme Court told him the he could not deport the Cherokee to Oklahoma - simply defy any rulings they hand down.
Listening to some of the pro-gun control voices out there, I have no trouble believing that some would do exactly that, should they ever get the chance.
That leaves only one question.
3) How many people are you willing to kill in the name of gun control?
I know that you want to believe that gun control would only save lives, but that is nothing more than wishful thinking. Gun control will cost lives - the only question is, "How many?"
First, let's assume that you are able to gain the cooperation of the vast majority of gun owners and you are able to get them to turn in over 300 million guns. That still leaves guns in the hands of lots of criminals - plus those that could be smuggled in, diverted from the police or military or made here in the US for criminal use. So now, as has happened in many other nations, the police are armed, the criminals are armed and law abiding people are not. In this situation, people are going to die - a great many of them.
Second, let's be realistic about what is actually going to happen. You are not going to get the kind of cooperation that was obtained in Australia. The reasons are:
The rate of gun ownership in the US is ten times that of 1996 Australia. There is solid evidence that 300 million guns have been sold, just in the last 17 years. The total number of guns could be 600 million.
There is no constitutional provision in the Australian constitution protecting the right to own firearms. There has been such a provision in the US Constitution for 225 years. A strong majority of the American public sees this as both a personal right and an important safeguard against tyranny. In this group, there are a huge number of military veterans - people who fought to keep this nation free. These people and many other Americans would see any gun control measures strong enough to accomplish anything (in the opinion of gun control advocates) as the first step towards tyranny.
Ditto for gun confiscations - no matter what they might be called. They simply will not cooperate. (FYI Australia just held another "gun amnesty" because, over 20 years later
 |
| Every Genocide In The 20th Century Was Preceded First By Gun Registration, Then Confiscation. Gun Owners Know This. How Do You Think They Will React? |
Additionally, you don't know where these guns are. Few states have registration laws. Records of sales are kept at gun dealers - and would likely be largely destroyed either by sympathetic dealers or by others wanting to eliminate these records. There would be a lot of fires........
So, if you want to do what every honest gun control advocate will tell you is the ultimate goal, you are going to have to send people door to door to confiscate guns. If you do that, it won't take long until a bunch of people independently resist, followed by those tasked with this job having to kill people.
What happens then is anyone's guess - but here's some things to think about:
Most gun owners would likely comply - but assuming there are 50 million gun owners, and just 1% decide to resist, that 50,000 armed people who have decided to give their lives to protect what they believe to be an essential American constitutional right.
Millions of firearms will be hidden, some quite effectively. You will not get them all.
Many people who do not own guns, and even some in favor of gun control, might have a big problem with the tactics needed to actually remove firearms. SWAT teams, or more likely troops, going door to door to seize property would be a huge wake up call for many Americans and would stiffen resistance.
A significant, but unknown number of law enforcement and military personnel will refuse to carry out these raids - either because they believe them wrong or simply because they do not want to be shot, or because they do not want to kill otherwise law abiding Americans.
Our nation is profoundly divided - more than at any time since the late 1850s. If fatalities result from confiscation efforts, it wouldn't take long for these nation to quickly "unzip" along current lines of division. Many who fear ever expanding government would see gun confiscation as an effort to remove the means for them to resist tyranny - and their last chance to do so. Local officials and even entire states could choose to fight for rights they hold dear. A civil war is definitely not out of the question.
CNN (of all outlets) issued this warning after Justice Stevens advocated repealing the 2nd Amendment: "What makes the Stevens manifesto especially irresponsible is that it would rupture the social fabric in this country — leading to turmoil, lawlessness and violence. Considering the fervor of many gun-rights advocates, it’s quite possible that not even reversal of Roe v. Wade would incite such rage."
 |
| The Vast Majority Of Gun Owners Know That Any Gun Confiscation Is Going To Lead To Most Guns Being Confiscated |
So, again, we come to the question: How many people are you willing to kill in the name of gun control? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 6,000,000? That last figure is what the casualties in our last civil war, adjusted for our current population. You really should "count the cost" before beginning any such effort.
If you are in favor of gun control, you should not only be able to explain HOW what you propose will actually work, you should be able to answer these there questions. Millions of Americans are waiting to hear your answers.
No comments:
Post a Comment