Does anyone, anyone...believe that more gun laws would have stopped this criminal from committing this crime in Aurora, Colorado? After all, the very reason criminals are criminals is that they don’t obey the law. To suppose that this man would have obeyed the law if there had just been a ban on the specific murder weapons he used is so foolish as to not even merit a serious response.
Nevertheless, while leftist politicians have remained silent, knowing the public is clearly and increasingly opposed to their position on gun control, there’s been no such restraint among leftist members of the media, some of whom were out crusading for more gun control before the bodies had even been removed from the theater in Aurora.
The response in Colorado? Background checks for people wanting to buy guns jumped more than 40 percent in one day. These are people wanting to do what most gun owners want to do: protect themselves from the kind of violence and horror that played out in their backyard.
The truth is that there is no real evidence that gun control has ever resulted in crime control. In fact, it’s exactly the opposite. Vermont has very few gun laws, and very little gun-related crime. Washington and Chicago, with about the strictest regime of gun laws in the nation, have about the highest rates of gun-related crime. And across the board, there has been no measurable correlation between strict gun laws and lower crime rates.
In short, gun control of the type consistently championed by the left is BOTH unconstitutional AND ineffective....in fact, it’s beyond ineffective, because the very few crimes it might prevent would be exponentially outweighed by the constitutionally guaranteed freedom stripped from tens of millions of law-abiding citizens.
There exists a gross misperception among the bulk of gun control advocates that gun enthusiasts are prone to violence, and wield their guns as a form of intimidation. But if you have spent any time around gun owners, you’d know that they cherish their guns for defensive purposes, and for hunting, that they take training seriously....and are with few exceptions extremely careful about how they carry and fire them.
But why must we take so seriously the guarantees in the second amendment to the US Constitution?
First and foremost, the arms that we have a right to bear represent the only item of personal property specifically included in the Bill of Rights, and thus are subject to a very high level of protection.
And there is a reason that this is the second amendment, as opposed to, say, the sixth or tenth. America’s founders were animated by the power of the British crown to control the ability of colonists to protect themselves. Thus, they placed the right to bear arms, and the clear statement that such a right shall not be infringed upon, next in line after the rights enumerated in the first amendment.
Indeed, from Hitler to Stalin to lesser despots, history has consistently demonstrated that the first act of tyrants is to confiscate the people’s means of self protection.
In the end, while some who seek to increase gun control laws may be well-intentioned, they are ultimately misguided and naive in advancing the indefensible proposition that laws making it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals will actually reduce crime.
