“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” – Thomas Paine
This upcoming Monday, December 14, will be the third anniversary of the Sandy Hook massacre. In the intervening years between then and now, there have been several mass shootings. With the latest mass shooting, this time in the gun-restricted Republic of California by terrorists, the gun-banning crowd is demanding for all guns to be confiscated. The question (and discussion) is that would this really do any good? Of course, this is ignoring that such an action violates the Second Amendment.
The brutal truth is that government cannot protect the individual citizen. There are a great deal of proposals put forth that propose to reduce the number of guns in criminal and terrorist hands, but none of them would have done anything to address the crimes committed. More laws, more background checks, putting people on lists without due process, and banning specific types of weapons all fall far short of actually preventing any type of gun violence or crime. If we are honest with ourselves, no amount of legislation would stop crime (or terrorism), and would instead inflict harm upon the People of this country.
Another brutal truth is that it is up to the individual, not government, to protect themselves. Mandated gun-free zones are nothing but “feel-good” areas of where people feel safe, but ignore that they have potentially put themselves in harm’s way. If that isn’t the case, then why do so many of these tragedies occur in places (and countries) that do not allow or restrict the private ownership of weapons?
Criminals and terrorists will find a way to acquire weapons. As an example, France has restrictions upon private ownership of weapons that make California’s gun laws look absolutely pathetic. And yet, in 2015, on two separate occasions, terrorists attacked and killed at will with fully automatic weapons! If gun control laws really worked, then these attacks would never have happened.
Since gun control laws obviously are flawed and do not stop criminal activities, then why do the politicians and various groups continue to hammer for more restrictions upon the law-abiding populace? I can think of two obvious reasons.
The first is power. If the population is disarmed, then the population can be controlled. Political opponents and dissent can be oppressed. The politically connected gain power, wealth, and privilege. The people are held in check by force, and any rebellion is brutally repressed. Hell in that country is a daily occurrence.
The second is the misguided belief that guns are at the root of violent behavior. If there is a gun in the hands of a person, then the potential for that person to become a violent criminal is increased. While I understand that the intent is to reduce crime and save lives, the reality is that people are not the saints that the Utopians want them to be. They will find guns or any other weapon to commit a crime. To whit:
Our politicians are, quite frankly, dishonest bastards who use the gun control issue to gain support and votes. Oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution mean nothing to the politicians seeking the highest offices in the land. We need to remember the following:
A final thought:
If any of the above, especially the last section of this post, makes you think about the consequences of an unchecked government, then I have achieved a goal for this post. If not, then think of several of the recent movies that depict a corrupt central dictating government running rampant over the people, killing and imprisoning at will any and all people raising even a single voice of protest and dissent.
Because, dear friends, what is depicted in those movies has happened in real life in countries such as the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, and Nazi Germany, and continues happen in countries such as North Korea. Where do you think the movie makers get their ideas?