A modest proposal: On gun control

No guns, for anyone. Photo: Weapon ban/ AP

WASHINGTON, October 2, 2013  As two new suits have been filed to challenge the Constitutionality of Maryland’s new gun laws, and two Colorado state senators have been recalled amidst cries that they violated 2nd Amendment rights, perhaps it is time we step back and take a look at the larger picture.

There are just too many guns out there.


SEE RELATED: New laws including gun restrictions start in Maryland October 1


So many argue for less gun control, but those nasty guns always end up in the hands of criminals.

So many more argue for more gun control, but the government and the military and the criminals would still have guns, so it’s not really about protecting the people it’s about disarming them.

Why don’t we just take guns out of the picture entirely?

Why don’t we just halt the possession, manufacture and importation of firearms altogether? But not just for civilians, for everyone.


SEE RELATED: Authorize.net gives no credit to the 2nd Amendment


There are only 220,000 workers associated with the gun industry in the United States, generating a mere $33,000,000,000 for the US economy. Money that we can obviously do without. Jobs and money are things that are not worth having these evil, monstrous instruments of death within our borders.

On to the plan.

How do we achieve a no guns at all plan?

We make it illegal to manufacture, sell, transfer, or possess firearms in the United States of America. No more importation or exportation. No more Remington or Winchester, no more firearms in the country at all, new or old.


SEE RELATED: Grassroots rage over Obamacare, gun control will hit hard in 2014


What about the military? With no one having guns in the US, the military will not need to guard their domestic facilities. When troops go overseas they can train and use weapons purchased by the government where they operate and issued in the field abroad. If we are truly anti-gun, we would not want our military to have them either.

What about police? Well with no one having guns in the US the police would not need to have them either. They can carry knives or billy clubs, but with no firearms in our cities or in our towns it really seems unnecessary for our law enforcement officers to be armed too. Accidents happen with police all the time in shooting the wrong people, and with the drop in crime that will follow banning all firearms police will no longer feel the need to buy them. If we are truly anti-gun, then the police would not need them either.

What about Border Patrol, and the potentially dangerous elements coming from across the Southern border? That’s preposterous, because according to many national and state politicians the threat is non-existent to negligible. And with their strict gun laws, there aren’t many firearms in Mexico to begin with. If we are truly anti-gun, then Border Patrol would not need them either.

What about the Secret Service? What about protecting our politicians? What’s to protect them from? Guns would be illegal, so no one would have them! Secret service could just as easily protect politicians using clubs and other blunt objects since any potential assailant would not be better armed than they were. If we truly want to be anti-gun, then our politicians don’t need them for protection either.  

With no guns in the entire country everyone would be completely safe from gun violence. Previously legal firearms could be bought back by the government at fair market price, with strict and swift penalties for those who refuse. Once the people are disarmed the police and military will disarm, and of course all armed federal agencies. Criminals, seeing how much money they could make, will flock to sell their guns to the government, and with no more guns coming in the country they would be forced to adhere to the new laws.

What about hunters and those who survive off the land? And what about parks where there are dangerous animals?  

Of course hunting will be made a little more difficult, but certainly with firearms being made illegal innovative bow makers will produce a way to take down a charging black bear with a compound bow. The Archery First initiative will teach willing Americans how to hunt with bows and arrows as opposed to firearms.

But regrettably until such technology is made available with the capability of taking down a rampant grizzly that is not firearm based, or until archery training is complete, national parks with dangerous wildlife will have to be closed.  All bows of course will have to have serial numbers, there will be an arrow tax, and extensive background checks will be required for all archery related purchases once an applicant has completed their Archer First Program and seven years of apprenticeship under a master bowyer.

Well what about the threat of invasion? The United States has not been invaded since the War of 1812, and as such it is not reasonable to believe that it could happen again. Mexico to the south has strict gun laws so no one could possibly get through with firearms from there, and Canada also has strict gun laws making the entire continent safer. If the United States is invaded, every diplomatic effort should be made to repel the invaders until we have reached a compromise.

Let statesmanship, and diplomacy be the rifles and ammunition of our foreign policy. Not to mention, with so many Americans proficient in archery any invading military would stand no chance.

Why get rid of all the guns? Why not let the police and military have them? Well if we as a nation are going to truly be about keeping our streets and our country safe from the terrible violence that guns bring upon us we need to realize how this plan looks to pro-gun individuals. How would it be right, to promote gun-control, if the only thing we do to prevent it is tell regular citizens, who follow the law anyway, that they can’t have guns anymore? Hey average Joe citizen, you can’t have a semi-automatic rifle but the police department has armored personnel carriers and automatic M-4s. Or, you can’t own a pistol that has the capacity to hold more than ten rounds, but the police can. No, of course that sounds ridiculous.

If we follow those lines the plan would not be ant-gun it would be anti-civilian possession of guns. Not only that, but it would be violation of the equal protection clause under the Constitution.

Well what about the Constitution? It’s simple, when no one in the United States has a firearm, everyone will agree that firearms are no longer necessary and the 2nd Amendment will be repealed. The 2nd Amendment was put into place to afford the people the right to the same weaponry as it available to the government. But if the government didn’t have any firearms either, their point is invalid, and we can progress as a nation. It’s as simple as that.

But if you are the government trying to tell the American people that they should not be able to own military based civilian modified weapons and deny their argument of protecting themselves from tyranny, and then you purchased 2,700 armored personnel carriers for the DHS, you are sending the wrong message. The same goes with purchasing hundreds of millions of rounds of hollow point ammunition creating a nationwide ammo shortage.

Using the term “high powered” rifle is also ineffective and incorrect. The “high powered assault rifles” are mainly 5.56x45 chambered weapons, which is a round designed by NATO to allow for low recoil, making soldiering easier for smaller framed individuals in NATO allied militaries to wield the rifles. These weapons were designed to wound so that other enemy soldiers would be forced to tend to their fallen comrades, effectively taking them out of the fighting. In fact, in some states you cannot hunt with a .223 (the 5.56 variant) because it is considered inhumane. In addition, specifying certain accessories or add-ons to a weapon as “dangerous” or “military features” is also incongruous with the goal of gun-control. A heat shield or barrel shroud does not make the gun any more or less lethal. It is simply the wrong way to go, and such tactics will get you called out by the pro-gun establishment.

The only way to go is complete, national disarmament. That way there is no chance that criminals could raid government storehouses, or that military weapons could make it to the hands of violent gangs. There would be no chance of corrupt government officials selling firearms to cartels or other organized crime groups. If we do not push complete disarmament by removing guns entirely from the situation and not just from the hands of civilians, then we are simply promoting the disarmament of the American people who would be left without means to defend themselves, while doing nothing about the very people that the 2nd Amendment afford them the right from which to protect themselves.

The only way to ensure that no guns fall into the hands of criminals, and to ensure the safety of Americas civilians, is to make sure that all guns are removed from the equation.

Because if disarmament does not take place on a national, state, and civilian level, and no one has guns, it is not “gun-control” it is “civilian control.” 

 


This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

More from It’s All Smoke and Whiskey
 
blog comments powered by Disqus
Conor Higgins

Conor Higgins has a B.A. from Catholic University in DC in American History, with a concentration on guerrilla warfare on American soil. He has an M.A. in US History from George Mason University in Fairfax, VA, with a concentration on Cold War insurgency. He believes that all news and all information should be taken with a grain of salt, and implores people everywhere to seek news stories everywhere. 

Higgins is also a fervent believer in the traditional role of media, in terms of acting as a balanced check on government policies and individuals regardless of party affiliation. But in the end, he believes that no matter how heated an issue is, there is nothing that can't be discussed over a smoke and some whiskey. 

Contact Conor Higgins

Error

Please enable pop-ups to use this feature, don't worry you can always turn them off later.

Question of the Day
Featured
Photo Galleries
Popular Threads
Powered by Disqus