Gun control. Even the sound of these two words strung together is enough to cause a liberal to salivate in delight, and at the same time, cause a conservative to foam at the mouth in anger at even the thought. In recent years, with the MSM’s increased attention to school shootings, gun control and “the safety of our children” have become forever entwined. There is so much swirling emotion around the idea of taking guns away from law abiding citizens to keep all of us “safe”, that is has become hard to have an intelligent conversation with a liberal about the topic. You see, the logic of gun control is not a concern of liberals. The simple fact that guns, when in the hands of evil people, can cause death, has blinded the thought processes of normally intelligent people and made them agents of the government to rid all of our streets of these evil utensils of death and destruction.
The complicity of the MSM to report on the gun deaths in our nation at an increased rate, despite the fact that gun deaths across the nation are down, is precisely what a regime, like the one we currently have in power, delights in. You see, when you rid citizens of the right to have guns you create a nightmare scenario where only the criminal element and government officials own and have access to firearms. I am not sure which faction out of those two I trust less? Today I am delving into the actual history of gun control and why it is so important for conservatives, even those who don’t own firearms, to continue the fight to protect the second amendment, not because you like guns or even plan to own one, but because it protects the rest of the rights in the Constitution that we hold dear.
I find it interesting to look back over the last hundred years or so and trace how party platforms came to be. When it comes to the symbiotic relationship of federal gun control and the Democrat Party, it all started back in the 1930’s with Franklin Roosevelt.
Roosevelt’s original proposal for the first federal gun control law, the National Firearms Act of 1934, sought to tax all firearms and establish a national registry of guns. Thankfully, gun owners would have none of this nonsense, and when they objected, Congress reworked the proposal to allow only for a financially restrictive tax on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. From that point forward, each and every time we had a new president in our nation, or a new tragedy occurred, talk of gun control came to the surface. The liberal Republicans that migrated to the Democrat Party and the Reagan-esque Democrats that moved to the Republican Party all had varying views on the idea of gun control and how the 2nd amendment fit into what gun control would look like in our nation. When Robert Kennedy was shot and when JFK and Reagan were shot, gun control came up as a way to deal with the “evil of guns”. What was NOT addressed however, was the heart condition of the people that would use ANY weapon to harm a person. Many feel that the transfer of power that happened in the 1990’s had something to do with the mentioning of gun control again surfacing, and much for that reason, the idea of regulating law abiding citizens access to firearms was tabled…well, that is, until school shootings started becoming regular nightly news. At this point, democrats had the ammunition to speak to everyday people about, not their hatred of guns, but their “love” for children. They were able to connect the idea of guns in the hands of legal citizens with guns in general, and guns in general with harm to our nation’s youngest and most vulnerable. The fallacy being displayed didn’t matter to liberals, nor did any lie or exaggeration they had to tell to get their end goal to become a reality. Groups of concerned mom’s led by activists with little in the way of facts and much in the way of an axe to grind started popping up and started pressuring national company chains to ban gun carrying on their premises. What follows are three facts that have to be ignored in order to be for the type of gun control that modern day liberals advocate:
No gun has EVER shot anyone without a person to pull the trigger.
It seems logical when you read it…no trigger puller, no gun death. For some reason though, guns have been targeted as the evil rather than the hearts of those who would harm another human being. The same logic applies to those who die of heart disease. We would simply need to ban forks, no? If we apply it to DUI/OWI deaths we would need to ban cars. Why are those not brought up as options by liberals? The answer is that they are so absurd at the outset that no one would take them seriously, but when applied to gun deaths, it has become widely accepted in the liberal community.
No criminal cares about laws that limit guns…by their very criminal nature they have shown that laws mean NOTHING to them.
Why don’t we make laws to make drugs illegal? That would certainly make drug abusers stop using them, right? Oh wait…they are illegal. Drug abusers do not care about drug laws. Now, I have never used a drug. I still don’t in light of the laws, but if tomorrow, the laws were lifted, I would also NOT go out and buy a kilo of cocaine. You see, with guns, those who are criminal will obtain firearms illegally if needed. Those of us that follow the law would more than likely obey the no gun policy and then be left subject to those who have no regard for the legal system.
The ONLY people with anything to gain from limiting citizen’s access to guns of all kinds are those who would victimize citizens, whether that be corrupt government or the criminal element.
You see, when you look at what Democrats are wanting, it isn’t inherently evil. Democrats don’t desire a Hitler to take over, or a Stalin or any dictatorial regime, and most of them do not see the correlation between taking guns away from citizens and a government going rogue, but in this case, it really doesn’t matter that some Democrats have pure motives when it comes to their desire to prevent gun deaths by eliminating guns rather than through responsibility and education. I guess the question that remains is, do we allow a small amount of fringe liberal activists to take us into an age of inability to defend ourselves against bad people, or, do we stand up and make sure that ANY attempt to limit the 2nd amendment is met with incredible demonstration and activism by those who would preserve the nation that we currently know and love.