The recent shooting in the Orlando, Florida LGBT nightclub was tragic and heartbreaking, not just for the LGBT community, but for anyone in America who felt solidarity and actually gave a damn. But as usual, the afterglow of tragedy was swiftly upheaved and manipulated for political argumentation – never mind the fact that the blood hadn’t even cooled; the suits in Washington felt it necessary to stand on the graves as soapboxes and promulgate yet another anti-gun push. President Obama stated that same day during his press conference what a shame it was that the “type” of gun used in the shooting was so easily, legally accessible.
The “type” of gun in this case was an AR-15, which, if one actually knows knows a thing or two about guns other than the fact that they shoot bullets, will be recognized right away as a semi-automatic weapon – the same as a common handgun. But the AR-15 is bigger and scarier-looking, and so the government mouthpieces in the media can count on the ignorance and fear of the masses in order to fuel their pretty obvious agenda: take even more guns off the market than have already been removed thus far.
The “assault weapon” is the newest target; before that, it was a certain size magazine; before that, it was fully-automatic machine guns (which, by the way, most iterations of haven’t been legally available for nearly 80 years). And even with that ban, the rate of homicides using the now-illegal machine guns account for so many off-the-record deaths, it’s impossible to know if the restrictions did anything but bar the law-abiding citizens’ abilities to match the caliber of guns of their assailants in self-defense (after all, making these weapons illegal only drives them further underground, making them nearly impossible to track).
So, anyone in his/her right mind should know by now that trying to rid the world of any type of gun via legislation is an empty gesture, and yet the politicians, who should know this cold fact best of all, continue to tell us from their bully pulpits that the only way to stop these tragedies is to pass even more laws and take away even more legal access to even more models and makes. It would seem there is more to this than they would have us believe.
But what about the laws that do and would make sense, even under a strictly constitutional perspective? On the state level, what “middle ground” is sensible for both the left and the right?
I part ways with many of my fellow libertarians on this issue, but I do not believe that one’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms is infringed by a state-level requirement for things such as background and health screenings, or even a license to carry that requires training. The end result is still being able to own a gun, but with the added bonus of knowing 100% how to properly use one (and having the documentation to prove it). This aspect should be enough for most reasonable people, bleeding heart liberals included, to get behind the idea of everyday citizens having unrestricted access to whatever gun they like – because if the screening and training process were streamlined in every state, or even at the national level, there would be no doubt as to each and every gun owner’s competency with whatever make and model of weapon he or she would choose.
Now, I realize the libertarian movement currently houses madmen who think even drivers licenses are tyrannical, so obviously this concept isn’t going to fly with the dug-in purists. But it would take off with pretty much everyone else. And everyone else is who actually votes and holds influence over who the next line of politicians will be and what new laws will be favored. Imagine an America where all restrictions on guns themselves were completely abolished, in favor of a new mandated screening process for legally obtaining a gun. Sure, it wouldn’t be pure anarchy like the loons among us want, but it would certainly mean that we would no longer have to put up with having more and more guns taken away from us, little by little, every year. And on top that, with every single gun owner properly trained with how to handle their own weaponry, the currently unfortunate annual rate of accidental gun deaths would almost certainly plummet. If there is a downside to any of this, aside from the conspiratorial cries of confiscation through having screenings and registries, it had better be worse than saving thousands of lives from sloppy gun accidents, or else it frankly would be worth risking by comparison.
I wrote earlier that I did believe there was an agenda behind the lies regarding the effectiveness of gun laws coming from politicians, but I also just clarified that I don’t buy into the idea that our leaders want our guns to prevent a potential revolution a la Nazi Germany; let’s be honest – we’ve already crossed the technological threshold where that would have made a difference. Now, if the government wanted us gone it would take merely a drone strike or two to stop any revolutionary upsetters who got too close to success. They don’t need to take our guns in order to neutralize us, if it ever came to that (which I’m not claiming it would). No – the politicians who watch us when we sleep are after something much more abstract yet simultaneously clearer: our loyalty, our fear, and our dependence on them for all our security. If we eventually have no legal access to any form of self-defense, then we will eventually be the cops’ loyal subjects. Forget shooting a home intruder the moment he is spotted – every law abiding citizen in a gunless America would have no choice but to find a phone, dial a number, speak to an operator, and patiently wait for the incompetent, corrupt police to arrive and save the day. What could transpire in the time between? Would the government even care?
So that is my reason for distrusting the current state of the debate on guns from the politicians’ side. Our leaders want us defenseless, dependent, and servile. And I for one wish to derail that aim. I believe that flipping the perspective on gun laws, and focusing on proper training and screening rather than outright access, is the answer.
Imagine if the piece of scum who murdered those innocents that night in Orlando had not been the only person with a gun. Now, imagine armed security with precise training and aim. Either of these scenarios could have hypothetically already happened had the club not been a “gun-free” zone. But now, what if it were a national mandate for all gun owners to have proof of competence with their weapons. Would the killer have even tried it? Would he have gotten very far in his spree if he had? Everyone knows the answer, even the anti-gun idiots. With guaranteed training with a gun, all of the “what if an innocent had been shot by accident” rubbish goes out the window completely. If every American could not only own a gun of any kind, but also be guaranteed to be an amazing, careful shot with said gun, every sane person on either side of this wretched debate would have absolutely nothing to say.
But instead, we keep fighting about what types of guns we should or shouldn’t allow people to guy. The madness continues.
R.I.P. to those lost in that terrible shooting – my heart and thoughts go out to the grieving families. I wish I didn’t have to make it political myself, but the power hungry of D.C. frankly started it.