We have often been told by gun control advocates that “nobody is coming to take your guns” and all they wanted were “common-sense” gun laws. However, the gun control reforms they have called for lead inevitably toward national registration of all firearms, which will inevitably lead to confiscation of firearms, which in turn will result in a second civil war or outright revolution. Belying this end goal, President Barack Obama recently called for America to emulate the strict gun control laws passed in Australia nearly 20 years ago. Speaking of the horrific 1996 mass shooting in Port Arthur that left 35 people dead and many more wounded, Obama said, “It was just so shocking the entire country said, ‘Well, we’re going to completely change our gun laws’, and they did. And it hasn’t happened since.”…. What Obama deliberately failed to mention was what happened after Australia outlawed guns, which was a coercive mandatory buyback of weapons and forced confiscation of firearms from those who resisted.
OK, everyone…repeat after me: BARACK OBAMA HAS AT NO TIME AND IN NO WAY CALLED FOR THE FORCED CONFISCATION OF GUNS.
Try saying that a few times; perhaps then it will begin to dawn on you that it’s the truth. The President has never, even obliquely, called for the confiscation of firearms. Why is it that whenever the President (or anyone else) calls for common-sense gun control, all proudly closed-minded gun control foes hear is “HI, I’M A GODLESS, AMERICA-HATING LIBERAL, AND I MEAN TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!!”? Why do proudly closed-minded gun control foes default to the reflexively, overly emotional, and wildly incorrect belief that The Black Man in the White House © wants to forcibly deny Americans their 2nd Amendment rights?
I reject the belief/delusion that even the barest hint of entertaining a rational discussion about reducing gun violence is tantamount to violating the God-given Constitutional rights of American patriots to own whatever firepower their little heart desires. The idea that we can’t even have a discussion centered on reducing gun violence because it’s “TOO SOON!” or about infringing upon 2nd Amendment rights is beyond absurd. Good people on both sides of the issue should be able to have an adult-level conversation without it immediately disintegrating into cries of “BUT YOU ONLY WANT TO TAKE OUR GUNS!”
Then again, you never have to worry about having a rational discussion when your go-to strategy is to plug your ears, close your mind, and scream “BUT YOU ONLY WANT TO TAKE OUR GUNS!” at the top of your lungs.
The truth is that there are those like me who would very much like to take your guns. The difference between my side and proudly closed-minded gun control foes is that we’re actually willing to recognize the validity of the other side’s argument. We understand the truth that we’re not going to be able to take guns from proudly closed-minded gun control foes. That said, we’re not about to roll over as proudly closed-minded gun control foes demand what they feel to be their inalienable, God-given rights to carry whatever they choose whenever and wherever they may choose.
In what world is carrying an AR-15 into a mall or an airport to be considered something even remotely approaching a good idea. Exercising your 2nd Amendment rights doesn’t include a concomitant right to scare the living shit out of the general public. The space between a patriot exercising his or her 2nd Amendment rights and a psycho opening fire in a mall is a split-second. That’s not exercising your rights; that’s willful stupidity and irresponsibility. A patriot’s gun rights don’t trump the public’s right to safety and freedom from the fear of reprobates with assault rifles.
Bearing Arms pointed out the enormous difference between Australia and the United States: Australia had approximately one million firearms to worry about confiscating from a more or less willing population, while the U.S. has upwards of 300 million firearms held by a population that is dead-set against giving them up.
Uh…dead set against giving them up? In what world- outside of your overactive imagination- is anyone seriously proposing taking away your precious guns? Has anyone come forward with a seriously considered proposal to do in America what was done in Australia? The short answer is “NO”…so how about we talk about things that exist in the real world- like reducing access to weapons that might be used in mass shootings? Or are you really more concerned with your 2nd Amendment rights than with the prospect of yet more innocent people being slaughtered for no reason?
In fact, as we have clearly seen in both Connecticut and New York, gun owners have remained staunchly opposed to even registering their firearms, so willingly turning them in or sitting back and allowing them to be confiscated simply isn’t going to happen.
You know, if we’re going to deal with things here in the real world, it would help to stop interpreting events dishonestly. As in any state, a portion of gun owners are opposed to any sort of registration requirement. Unfortunately for proudly closed-minded gun control foes, most gun owners actually support the idea of common sense gun control. Why? Perhaps because of the “common sense” part of the equation?
Essentially, by calling for America to follow Australia’s lead regarding gun control, Obama has called for America to follow the lead of the colonists in 1776, who were finally pushed into sparking a revolution because of gun control and confiscation of firearms by the British Crown.
I love it when proudly closed-minded gun control foes use a historical reference to buttress their argument…without realizing such a reference only serves to point out their almost complete ignorance of the history they cite. The American Revolution wasn’t about the Crown’s desire to take away the colonist’s guns; it was about the desire to be out from underneath British oppression. NO ONE was clamoring over losing their 2nd Amendment rights before, during, or even after the Revolution.
The next time proudly closed-minded gun control foes feel moved to use American history to support their “MOR GUNZ!!!” argument, might I suggest they read up on that history before you demonstrating their impressive commitment to ignorance?
Any attempt at national registration, and the mass confiscation that would inevitably follow, will only result in widespread bloodshed and quite possibly an end to America as we have known it — for better or worse.
There’s really no other way to describe this argument except as bullshit and bluster. Proudly closed-minded gun control foes love to puff their chests out and talk a good patriotic game, but they’re not stupid enough to believe that the mere suggestion of common sense gun control would be enough to spark a bloody revolution. Proudly closed-minded gun control foes are ALL about bloodshed…just as long as it’s not their own.
In other words, “shall not be infringed” means leave our guns alone. And we are serious about that.
Uh, no; proudly closed-minded gun control foes’ self-interested, self-serving, and inaccurate interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is not the last word. It’s interesting how they focus on the “shall not be infringed” part while completely ignoring the “well-regulated militia” part. I’ll tell you what, though; if proudly closed-minded gun control foes could tell me what well-regulated militia they belong to, we might have something to talk about. Until then…and you’ll note I’m not holding my breath on that…the 2nd Amendment will remain the most willfully and egregiously misinterpreted 27 words in the English language.
Americans need to be able to talk about common sense gun control, about reducing the likelihood of another Sandy Hook. We can’t continue to allowing screaming and self-righteous bluster to derail the conversation…unless we want to be complicit in the continuing senseless slaughter of yet more innocent Americans.
