The national debate is now narrowly focused on the problem of mass murders committed by mostly mentally ill people or homegrown terrorists. As long as human beings are involved there will be murders and mass murders. There will always be crimes of passion whether one uses a gun, a bomb, knife, hammer, poison, or bare hands. Cain killed Abel probably with a rock. Maybe we should ban rocks? The nutty left approach is that since some people are mentally off balance and we don’t know where all of them are, we should disarm everyone. If they are successful and get our guns, the problem would still exist. Trust me on this or better yet trust history.
There is generally no doubt or disagreement from anyone that some people should not be allowed to have a gun. But, if Americans are disarmed, who will have the guns? The government and criminals will. Criminals always get guns when they want them. Do we want an America where only our government and criminals have guns? What if our government becomes oppressive? Oh, excuse me, I meant more oppressive.
Remember prohibition in our country’s history from 1920-1933? Congress banned alcohol manufacture, transportation, and sale. What a great idea. Everyone quit drinking right? Marijuana is illegal in almost all states and none of the citizens of those states smoke it right? And if we ban guns no one will have them? Of course they will.
In just the last few weeks the rhetoric and the constant demonization of gun owners has swelled to a deafening level. The left has successfully labeled those of us on the right as “mean spirited.” We are the ones who are mean spirited? Really? Here is just one example of the left’s worldview. These are the words of Donald Kaul, who writes for the Des Moines Register. He was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. Kaul says:
“Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. … Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that ‘prying the guns from their cold, dead hands’ thing works for me.”
He speaks with a kind and gentle spirit, doesn’t he? He appears to have no problem with the violent death of those who disagree with him. I don’t hear an outcry from the media over his comments, do you? And don’t be fooled. Many on the left agree with him. They just won’t say so out loud.
There are arguments on both sides of the issue as to whether violent crime declines with strict gun control. But, the antigun forces have framed the question and controlled the argument to their advantage. The discussion is always in the context to save lives and protect children. I don’t know of anyone who would not want to accomplish both of these things. But, the question remains as to how do we get this done without disarming everyone?