Skip to comments.A Modest Proposal on Gun Control. (With apologies to legal gun owners in Chicago.)
Posted on 12/27/2012 10:07:31 AM PST by newheart
This is the age of science, after all. Reason has finally liberated us from the tyranny of superstition. We no are no longer forced to cling bitterly to guns and religion. It is the golden age of rationality. Even the President, that paragon of Spockian logic himself, has told us, through his Secretary of re-Education, Arne Duncan, "Reasonable people should be able to agree on these restrictions " (Translation: Opposition to gun control is irrational.)
So let's be reasonable. Let's be rational. In fact, let's be completely scientific. Let's conduct an experiment. As we all know, scientific inquiry is completely devoid of ideology (cough) so let's utilize it.
First, we begin with a hypothesis, one that will warm the hearts of those on the Left: Disarming the population will eliminate gun violence.
Second, we will need to devise an experiment to test our hypothesis. In order to do that we should probably look for a place that currently has a problem with gun violence. I am proposing the city of Chicago. As we all know, things are completely out of hand there. Guns are killing people in Chicago at an astonishing rate. Lord knows they could use a solution, and Mayor Rahm wants to impose stricter gun control laws anyway, so Chicago really is the perfect laboratory for this experiment.
To be completely accurate, it will be necessary to remove ALL guns from the city. Naturally that will require confiscation of guns from right-wing crazies, Tea Party members, Republicans, criminals, thugs and drug dealers. But that really isn't enough. It will also be necessary to remove guns from the police, all military and para-military organizations, security guards at the mall, the security teams for all Chicago politicians and professional athletes, as well as Oprah's bodyguards. When the President visits the old homestead, even the Secret Service will have to leave their weapons behind.
And let's be clear, this is not going to be a mere assault weapons ban. It will be necessary to collect every gun, from the biggest, baddest, uber-military grade weapon right down to every single-bullet antique derringer.
You might think that this is an impossible experiment; that Chicagoans will never part with their weapons. I disagree. 84% of Chicagoans voted for Obama. Given the fact that Obama voters are all peace-loving, gun control supporters, there should be no problem. I have no doubt that they will gleefully line up to turn in the very few guns they have now, happy to see Chicago become the nation's largest gun-free zone. For the Romney voters, those crazy, clinging, right-wing zealots who must be the ones who are causing all the gun violence in Chicago now, they can simply be given the option to turn in their guns or leave.
If the hypothesis is correct, we will see the end to gun violence in Chicago. There will be no more murder, no more suicide, no more armed robbery. Rahm will be elected Mayor-for-Life and Obama can sign an executive order calling for the experiment to be replicated in every city and town through the land. Life in these United States will become as peaceful and idyllic as any Utopian's fantasy-land. Rainbows, unicorns and Skittles for everyone!
All they have to do is post signs saying that this is a gun free zone. That should solve the problem of all those shootings in Chicago.
Liberals that want gun control and believe in gun free zones should post gun free zone signs on their property and persons.
Perhaps a window sign “SOUL BROTHER” would work better.
Those who remember the 1960s will get it.
Manhattan, being an island, might do the trick. Bloomberg already has tried it, but can't get the control he needs to implement his gun ban fully. Let him do it. Then let's see what happens.
But keep in mind when you make these proposals that the point of the second amendment is not just self defense from armed criminals, or for hunting. That would let the liberals set the premise. The purpose of the second amendment is to keep us free, to protect us from those who would make themselves tyrants. The drive for gun "control" is for the hidden purpose of ensuring that the statists will not face resistance from that remnant population of free people when they impose their tyranny on all of us. That has nothing to do with gun violence by criminals and crazy people.
Outlaw firearms and only criminals will have them. This is every Christmas present and birthday present they ever got rolled into one for criminals. All you do is disarm their potential victims.
Oh, and if you're so sure a weapons ban would work - please tell me how that would be any different than Prohibition was, or the more current war on drugs, stopping illegal immigration, stopping drunk driving ... Because if there is some magic formula for making large federal programs anything but expensive failures then these other efforts need that same silver bullet.
You’re right. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t protect us from a tyrannical government by saying we can have weapons of a certain type. It protects us by saying what the government is not allowed to do - it is not allowed to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. As long as we maintain and protect that right, we’ve won. We don’t need an armed confrontation with the government. If we surrender that right, then we’ve lost, we’ve submitted to tyranny.
In case you were wondering, Swift didn't really think the Irish poor should eat their children.
Yeah, Bloomie got distracted by other pressing issues. Guns don't kill people, 17-ounce Big Gulps do.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the people from being subjugated by a “standing army.” The Founders were not fond of the army the British had put in place to rule the colonies.
Tenche Cox, Pennsylvanian delegate to the
Continental Congress tells us:
The militia of these free commonwealths,
entitled and accustomed to their arms,
when compared with any possible army,
must be tremendous and irresistible.
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?
Is it feared, then, that we shall turn
our arms each man against his own bosom.
Congress have no power to disarm
Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American
the unlimited power of the sword is not in
the hands of either the federal or state governments,
but, where I trust in God
it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
Or perhaps "SEOUL BROTHER" for those who remember those Korean shopkeepers in the Rodney King riots.
Histories and effects of comprehensive bans:
1) Prohibition: Ban on alcoholic beverages led to massive increase in organized crime, street crime, corruption, bribery, vice, murder, and disrepect for the law. Alcohol consumption increased markedly.
2) War on Drugs: Ban on “controlled substances” costs billions per year. Illegal drug growing, making, smuggling, and trafficking is the mainstay of organized crime, and is at the root of most murders, gang activity, corruption, bribery, prison overcrowding, and general societal collapse. Dealing with crime linked to illegal drugs is probably the #1 occupation of Federal, State, and local law enforcement, yet illegal drugs can be found anywhere in the USA in great quantities.
If doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results defines insanity, we can see on which side of the asylum walls the gun-banners stand. The Democrats want to make millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals, so that they can be intimidated and silenced. Adding hundreds of thousands of unionized police, bureaucrats, prosecutors, and agents provocateur to the public payroll while the country goes off the fiscal cliff is their bonus.
kinda like those stimulus signs that boast of construction in an ‘economic recovery zone’.
those places are all boom towns with unemployment under 3%.
Clever, but liberals just say the weapons are coming from the suburbs around Chicago where guns aren’t controlled/banned enough.
The reality is though that the idea that gun bans work is an article of faith for liberals. There is no evidence you can provide that will change the way they think about this. The only thing that might is if said liberal gets mugged or otherwise injured by a criminal themselves.
Liberalism is like a religion. For a lot of progressives, their politics have in fact replaced religion. Just like any religious belief, it is extremely hard to change peoples minds about these thing no matter how much evidence is presented.
At the risk of being cliche... see my tagline:
I’d go for as long as they put a wall around Chicago and controlled access like they do in airports...
Oh, and street cameras streaming on the Internet... We could watch the zombie apocalypse in real time...
Wonder how many of these men lined up to turn in their guns in the latest LA gun buy back?