Disarmament is the Real Goal

Much is being made in the mainstream media about the lack of response from the National Rifle Association (NRA) about the Newtown massacre. Protesters in Washington D.C. even marched on Capitol Hill, carrying signs and chanting “Shame on the NRA,” as if the NRA itself pulled the trigger. Where are these protesters when traffic pile-ups cause multiple deaths on American highways? Why do they not protest the auto industry for allowing these vehicular weapons to remain legal? The answer, of course, is quite obvious: their motivation has nothing to do with “safety,” but has everything to do with disarmament.

Vocal gun-rights advocate Ted Nugent tweeted the real truth when he wrote: “That more than 100 million lawful gun owners would be punished & restricted due to the criminal abuse by .00001% is pure insanity no thankU.” Precisely, Ted, but unfortunately this is how we legislate in America. The majority of the laws currently on the books have been enacted due to isolated incidents, and this only creates a problem for lawful citizens. Laws do not and never will stop criminals from being criminals. Lawbreakers don’t care what the law states they are allowed or not allowed to do; they do what they want, lawful or not. Would a ban on assault weapons really have stopped Adam Lanza from committing such atrocities? Obviously not. Murder—whether committed with an AR-15 or with a hammer—is still illegal, and yet murder continues to occur. And as Thomas Sowell reminds us, a city that has one of the highest murder rates in the country—Washington D.C.—is also a city that boasts some of the toughest anti-gun laws. Gun control laws do not make for a safer place to live; quite the opposite in fact.

This simple fact is what is nearly always overlooked any time an armed monster decides to mow down innocent victims. Gun control laws are counterproductive because they seek to legislate the tool, rather than the perpetrator. Why weren’t “safety” advocates irate about the man who killed his neighbor with a hammer? Why weren’t they demanding that “hammer-control” laws be enacted for the safety of all other neighbors? The reason is that hammers actually have a useful purpose, one that far outweighs their liability as potential murder weapons. Hammers can be used to both build houses and end lives. It is likewise with guns. Guns can be used to stop violence just as easily as they can be used to begin it. The benefit of guns far outweighs their liability as potential murder weapons.

None of this matters though, as President Obama will no doubt use Newtown as political leverage to push through stronger gun control laws. Republicans will say nothing, much like the NRA is doing, because saying anything against tougher gun laws is akin to saying that Newtown wasn’t a travesty. Republicans will stay quiet because they value their political future over the rest of America’s constitutional rights. They will stay quiet as gun control activists make emotional pleas for the safety of children, forgetting that the Second Amendment is the ONLY hedge against federally-mandated tyranny. An unarmed citizenry poses no threat to a tyrannical government, just as unarmed educators pose no threat to a madman stalking their school’s hallways. Disarmament of American citizens is the real goal, and until this goal is finally met be aware that these kinds of “random shooting incidents” will only continue to increase.

[js-disqus]