Yes, They Want to Take Your Guns Away!

Yes, They Want to Take Your Guns Away - The Daily Beast:

 Why don’t gun-control advocates like Hillary Clinton talk about the one gun control solution that could actually fix the firearms problem in America?

Sometimes I love The Daily Beast, sometimes I hate it.  But you got to admit, there's often content that makes you go .... "Hmmmmmm ...."

Contributor James Kirchick  (herein: "The Author") uses big words that I had to look up to examine why Total Confiscation Of All Guns would be the ideal "solution" to the "Gun Control Problem",

But it will probably never happen.

Why not?

UNIVERSAL FIREARMS CONFISCATION!!!

(there, I've said it)

The perennial “national conversation” about guns is predictably stale because its contestants—those favoring a largely unfettered right to personal gun ownership and those opposing it—are talking past each other. Prevarication characterizes the debate, as each side adheres to a core principle that, for reasons of propriety and political calculation, it is unwilling to admit publicly. 

In other words, everybody lies.  Liberals say they don't want to take your guns away; Conservatives say YES YOU DO!
 Liberals say 'oh, no, of course not .. we couldn't, because you would shoot us!'

Liberals think they're making a talking point.  Conservatives think this is a Nuclear Option.

The core principles The Author talks about are this:

• Gun Control People: if there were no guns, there would be no gun deaths
• Gun Rights People: if there were no LEGAL guns, criminals would still have them and honest people would be defenseless victims

There are some truths to each side.

If in an imaginary "perfect world" (as the author describes):

.... the United States would never have had the Second Amendment. But such a country—one not forged in armed revolution against arbitrary rule from afar and founded upon the principle of individual liberty—would not be the United States, with all its virtues and vices.

Well, perhaps.

On the other hand: the handicapped, women and old people would be at the mercy of brawny men who are physically stronger than their victims.   Speaking for the "old people" contingent, I know that if somebody broke into my home (Liberals insist this rarely happens, regardless of dailynews reports to the contrary) I would be unable to physically resist them.

What was that quote?  Oh yes ..

“Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal”. 

The author of the article holds an opinion which seems to be that the world would be much, much better if there were no guns.

There's a old saying, to the effect that "A Liberal is a man who has been arrested; a Conservative is a man who has been mugged."

I'm not saying anything about the author's legal past, of course.  It's just an adage, which is obviously not applicable to anyone specifically.

I'm sure the author doesn't REALLY believe that the world would be a more peaceful place without guns.

... (thinking, thinking, thinking ....)

Okay, I'm not at all sure about that:
I think the author is a total dork who has a completely unrealistic concept of what predators will do when the defensive instincts of nature are removed, and the lions are asked to lie down with the lambs ... and the lambs agree.   The author constructs his postulations so exquisitely that it is often difficult to understand exactly what he is saying.

Short interpretation: the author thinks that firearms owners are rabid chipmunks with machine guns and absolutely NO sense of Societal Responsibility .. because guys with guns only think about themselves, not about The Greater Good.





The author makes a general statement about Americans who don't trust their government to have the best interest of the general population as their primary concern:

Second Amendment enthusiasts are fond of arguing that gun rights are enshrined in the Constitution not only for the sake of hunters or people who want to protect their homes and businesses from criminals, but also to allow the population to resist an overreaching government. If federal agents came to round up firearms, many gun owners would be prepared to shoot back. Clinton can joke all she likes about Americans fearing “black helicopters” taking their guns away, but it is no exaggeration to suggest that civil war could erupt on American soil were the U.S. government to attempt anything remotely resembling what was done in Australia.

The author pointedly is not dismissive of the plight of honest Americans who believe that the Second Amendment acknowledges their right to own and even carry firearms.  I think he is attempting an exculpatory statement that legal firearms owners might feel that their constitutional rights might be proceduraly violated, and would reluctantly respond with violence.

I'm just not certain that he believes that any violent overthrow of a predatory governmental agency would be constitutionally protected.  Well, I'm not sure myself, but I AM sure that nobody wants another revolution!   Like most gun owners, I just want my government to have the same respect for my constitutional rights as I do.   This IS the "Nuclear Option", which nobody wants.

Unfortunately, when pushed, American Citizens faced by a powerful Central Government and a strong Standing Army are left with a very limited laundry list of options.  Bow down, or fight?  What kind a federal government would force its citizens to the breaking point?

The only defense Americans have against a tyrannical government is that regular army members are reluctant to fire upon citizens who are standing up for their constitutional rights.

I'm sure he (The Author) realizes the historical fact that an unarmed populace finds itself at the mercy of criminals and tyrants.   Neither of those two classes have any respect for the law, and both crooks and tyrants would like nothing better than an unarmed population.

You know: Hitler, Stalin,  Lon Nol, Pol Pot, Spanish Inquisition, Ivan the Terrible, the Thirty Years War, etc. (You can compile your own list.)  

{That's a tiny link, but it opens your browser to a huge font of information which some of us would probably wish we didn't know about nations killing their citizens for very 'practical' reasons.   Stalin famously said:  "One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic."}

All of this anti-gun and pro-gun rhetoric  has little to do with the peaceful ownership of firearms by tens of millions of responsible, honest gun owners who would find themselves without the means to defend their persons, their families, and their homes if the author's dream scholastic concept of universal firearms confiscation were to somehow to come true.  Unfortunately, that small community of responsible gun owners are commonly under fire from those who conflate legal owners of firearms with criminals.   Figuratively, from the liberals; actually, from the criminals.)

The author, on the other hand, seems to believe that if we impose just enough of the right kind of gun control laws, then murders would cease and the lion would lie down with the lamb.

I would like to think that nobody is quite stupid enough to believe that fantasy.

But then, nobody has ever accused me of Liberal Thought.