Gun Control - Cut To The Chase


Most gun owners know when they hear any variation of the phrase, "reasonable controls on guns" that it is authoritarian Doublespeak for "confiscation."

The authoritarians in both political parties are going to ban them by one category, type or class at a time. Gun owners are oftentimes referred to as "extremists" because they won't "compromise" with the latest push for even more gun control. The real extremists are the authoritarians who wish to "control" the guns in the first place. Why? When the anti-gun authoritarians "compromise" it is always with an eye towards returning with another round of proposed legislation to "control" more guns, ammunition or accessories next time. Authoritarians don't lose ground when they "compromise." They simply don't gain as much ground as they wanted to but they will ultimately win by incrementalism if they are not opposed in every attempt they make to abrogate Second Amendment civil rights.

If the gun owners don't "compromise" they are referred to as "extremists." Yet, if the gun owners continue to compromise, there won't be any guns left to ban, the other side will win and it's just that simple. Make no mistake, once the firearms are gone, they will be gone forever.

I have had quite a few conversations with this Gentleman I know. A very intelligent man. A very likeable man.

Many of those conversations used to be about gun control. I don't do that anymore.

After one of the latest shootings one of our conversations once again turned towards the private ownership of semi-automatic firearms and, like a bored moviegoer, I just wanted to cut to the chase because it was the same old boring plot: "We need to ban semi-automatic guns because they shoot too fast and hold too much ammunition."

So, I looked at him and I said, "Okay, how about this, let's stop debating how many rounds a magazine can hold and we just have an outright ban on all semi-automatic firearms, period. No exemptions, they're all gone. What are they going to do when someone walks into a school or a mall and shoots multiple people with a lever-action rifle, bolt-action rifle, pump-action shotgun or a revolver? What are you going to support in the way of legislation then?"

He looked at me incredulously. Almost flabbergasted, but calmly said, "But you're not offering a solution to the problem."

I said, "Sure I am. I gave you what you want, that's the solution. Ban all semi-automatic firearms and you no longer have to worry about magazine capacity, bayonet lugs or flash suppressors and other accessories. Have everyone turn them in and anyone who doesn't, go confiscate them. Once and for all, get rid of them. That is the solution being offered by anti-gun people. I just know that if that happens, and we ban all semi-automatics, someone is going to walk into a fast food restaurant or something and kill a few people and the entire process will start all over again and whatever firearm that shoots the fastest or holds the most after that will then be targeted. They will become the new 'assault weapon.'"

I am tired of people debating dishonestly about it. They know that they can't divulge what they are really talking about, what they really believe, which is banning all firearms, so they obfuscate.

This conversation actually repeated three or four times over the span of a month and it was always the same. I cut through all of the Doublespeak and went right to the heart of the matter and made him hear the reality of his position. Because what I had to say is the reality of his position - he wants all firearms ownership eliminated but he knew if he said that, he would come off as the unreasonable "extremist" on the issue of gun control. He never said, "I didn't think about that." He simply said, over and over again, that I was not offering a solution to the problem.

Most people that have been paying attention to the politics of gun control know what I am saying is true. If the authoritarians actually banned all semi-automatic firearms and someone walked into some office and shot eight people with a lever-action rifle, that type of firearm would be next. We would hear editorials and news stories about how Confederates during The American Civil War decried the 1860 Henry Lever-Action Rifle as, "That damned Yankee rifle that you can load on Sunday and shoot all week." The premier "assault weapon" of its day.

If you doubt that authoritarian politicians have confiscation in mind, please remember the words of Senator Diane Feinstein, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it."

There are politicians in this country that treat The Bill of Rights like it is a buffet table. They protect what they value and attack or ignore what they don't - like a petulant child gorging on pie and turning their nose up at asparagus or elbowing it off of the end of the table.

Sometimes the authoritarians just make up rights that don't exist:

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Sen. Diane Feinstein, Associated Press, 11/18/93

I guess I missed that Amendment in school.

We don't need a "Passenger's Bill of Rights" or a "Patient's Bill of Rights," both of which are a sick joke and a distraction away from the fact that the very same classes of people, politicians and bureaucrats, are eviscerating the real Bill of Rights.


- Don Rearic, January 17, 2015




Back to Against The Wall

Back to The Main Page