Real Gun Control Now: Repeal the Second Amendment (Updated)
December 15, 2012 - 5:12 am
There are many questions being asked in the wake of the tragic shootings in Connecticut yesterday. But there is only one relevant question to all the “debate” over gun control that needs to be answered.
Would any gun control law, or regulation, currently in place anywhere, or envisioned by the most strenuous advocates for “sensible” gun laws, have prevented this tragedy from occurring?
Unless you pass a law mandating gun shop owners and gun sellers be soothsayers and diviners of the future, I’m afraid not.
Those who advocate for”sensible gun laws” are not serious people. To many, a “sensible” gun law is concealed-carry. To others, “gun free zones” make a lot of sense. The problem is that the term “sensible” is a political construct, advanced by gun control advocates who don’t want to scare hunters or rile the NRA with talk of their real agenda; banning most handguns. It’s a term that bears no relationship whatsoever to the reality of preventing gun crimes or mass shootings.
The fact is, gun laws and regulations that are designed to keep weapons out of the hands of “dangerous” people — i.e. criminals and the mentally unbalanced — are already on the books in many states and cities and don’t do much at all in preventing gun crime or the sort of tragedy we witnessed yesterday in Connecticut. There are some weeks in Chicago where more people are killed by guns than died at the Newtown elementary school and Chicago has truly draconian gun laws — far more stringent than anything Congress will be capable of passing.
This raises the issue of what measures would be effective in dealing with criminals with guns and the mentally deranged who might get access to guns? Assuming that gun control advocates wish to accomplish more than just annoying law abiding citizens who wish to own guns, there is really only one course of action that would seriously deal with what gun control advocates believe needs to be addressed.
Repeal the Second Amendment.
Time to stop pontificating and get serious if you’re really determined to get a handle on gun crime and prevent mass shootings. Standing on the dead bodies of little children to advocate for “sensible” gun control is specious. There is no such thing. To prevent a deranged person from getting their hands on guns, you would have to disallow sales to the criminal’s and the mentally ill’s family, friends, and acquaintances as well. And what of a sick person’s constitutional rights? If they are on medication that controls their depression or other mental illness, who are we to say they should be denied their rights under the constitution?
The only real solution is to repeal the Second Amendment, make most guns illegal, and give anyone who commits a crime with a gun a life sentence if convicted.. Banning the sale, distribution, and ownership of handguns, assault weapons, large clip handguns, etc. plus locking away the criminal element that uses guns would put a big dent in violent crime — maybe.
But “sensible” gun law advocates are too cowardly to put their money where their mouth is and get serious about gun control. Instead of taking steps to deal with criminals and the insane who might have legal access to guns, their fantasies about new gun laws would only inconvenience law abiding citizens, and not stop a single future school shooting. (If the gun control crowd can play at predicting the future, so can I.)
So instead of doing something about the problem, gun control advocates are perfectly content to use the issue as a political club to gain influence and power. It’s too difficult to amend the Constitution, so why not pretend we are dealing with the problem by passing a slew of laws that criminals laugh at and the mentally deranged simply bypass?
And let’s stop the charade about adopting “sensible” gun laws. It does not give anyone the moral high ground. It only shows how bereft of courage the gun control lobby is when they refuse to bring their agenda out in the open for public debate.
I guess I was too subtle in my post about repealing the Second Amendment. I was only taking the argument of “sensible” gun law advocates to it’s logical conclusion. I in no way advocate the repeal of the Second Amendment nor believe that any gun law could have stopped the tragedy in Connecticut (thought I made that crystal clear).
There is no way that the Second Amendment will ever be repealed nor is there a chance in hell that we would send criminals who commit a crime with a gun to jail for life. I thought my facetiousness was obvious, but apparently not.
I apologize for the confusion.