Gun Control

By Louis Avallone

And so, there was President Obama, last week, at a press conference, surrounded by children, as he signed 23 executive orders to address gun violence, representing the most restrictive, federal gun control plan in decades.

With the images of innocent, beautiful children, standing behind him, it calls to mind the political advice offered by Hitler, in 1925: “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

If you are drawing any comparison here, to folks in Washington, this all sounds like crazy, extremist talking points, except when you consider monsters like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Castro, and Pol Pot, all sought out to confiscate guns when they first assumed power. In Russia, for example, the murder rate is 4 times higher than the U.S, and that’s with an entire generation of Russians, born and raised to adulthood, without their basic and traditional rights to self-defense. It is much easier, of course, to repress a mass population, when the people’s best defenses against government soldiers are limited to pitchforks and knives.

Regardless of Washington’s intentions, most Americans actually support some gun control measures. In fact, most believe a strict background check should be required for anyone looking to buy a gun, as well as increased restrictions on high-capacity magazines.

There’s lots of debate over the effectiveness of such added gun control measures. Supporters of the 2nd amendment might point to a Harvard University study which concluded that, as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases. Gun advocates can also rely on the data that shows how firearms are used defensively about 2.5 million times per year (which amounts to 2,575 lives protected for every life lost to a gun), not to mention the reported 498,000 intruders frightened away, altogether, by a homeowner with a gun.
Most everyone can acknowledge that greater gun control will not prevent a mentally unstable person, or someone just intending to do harm to others, from entering a school, or a theater, or a church, with a box cutter, pepper spray, knife, or even a bomb. Despite this, too many folks still say we need stricter gun control, and that we need to pass more, and even tougher, criminal laws, lock up the offenders, and throw away the keys.

But we have enough laws, and the U.S. already has the highest incarceration rate in the world, yet we still don’t feel safe in our own neighborhoods, but it’s not because of law-abiding citizens owning guns.

We feel so unsafe, though, that many Americans are willing to surrender more and more of their Constitutional rights to the federal government, including the dilution of the 2nd Amendment, and the right of self-defense, even when the cost outweighs the benefit.

You see, the folks in Washington are peddling the politics of fear – and it’s a trap. Obama says, “If there’s even one thing that we can do to reduce this violence, if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we have an obligation to try.” Well, if he’s talking about banning so-called “assault” weapons, then you should realize those weapons are hardly used in crimes, comparatively speaking, and in fact, they are used in only one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes, and these weapons make-up only 1.7% of all firearms in circulation.

You see, all this fuss about so-called “assault” weapons is more symbolic. It makes for good politics, but it might be considered also, by some, as a deliberate attempt to weaken the 2nd Amendment, or as Attorney General Holder said in 1995, as a first step to “really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”

But we’ve got bigger issue as Americans, for both gun control advocates and gun enthusiasts alike, and it’s this: If we accept the President’s proposition that Executive Orders, mandating anything, at any time, must tried “even if one life can be saved”, and without the “inconvenience” of requiring Congressional approval first, what’s next then? Can the federal government limit the number of miles you can drive in your car each day, since traffic fatalities are obviously higher when there are more miles driven? Under Obama’s ideology, the federal government could have an obligation to try and reduce traffic fatalities, “even if one life can be saved.”

Could the federal government limit the number of hammers sold at hardware stores because hammers were used in over 600 murders last year? An Executive Order likewise may be needed to control hammers, “even if one life can be saved”. Do you see how far off the tracks that we’re getting here, by accepting the explanation of “even if one life can be saved”? Do you see how, before long, the folks in Washington will be telling you how many times a day to brush your teeth?

If you want a hint of what may be in store, consider this: In a 2008 primary election interview, Obama said, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” Really? Well, that’s good to know, Mr. President, because most Americans have no intention of giving them to you either.

Related posts: