Remember all those times the liberal Democrats assured those on the right that they’re not out to take away anyone’s guns? Well, add that one to the long list of the left’s broken promises, right along with “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor” and “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
Earlier this month, David Scharfenberg of the Boston Globe wrote an article titled “Hand Over Your Weapons,” in which he actually argued that total gun confiscation might be the only real solution to preventing mass shootings in this country. “The logic of gun control lies, at bottom, in substantially reducing the number of deadly weapons on the street – and confiscation is far and away the most effective approach,” Scharfenberg said. “Is there any conceivable turn of events in our politics that could make confiscation happen? And what would a mass seizure look like?”
Right from the start, it’s clear that Scharfenberg hasn’t spent much time thinking this idea through. Total gun confiscation in America would most likely be a two-part process. First, the people would be given a chance to voluntarily surrender their firearms to their local or state government within a certain time frame. Millions of gun owners would inevitably refuse, citing their right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Tensions between the government and the people would continue to grow to the point where federal agents would literally start going door to door collecting firearms, potentially igniting a civil war within a matter of months.
Sorry, Mr. Scharfenberg, but your idea really isn’t a good one. (Related: Leftists are lying about gun control by failing to mention that the vast majority of gun deaths in America are suicides.)
His piece in the Boston Globe continued, “Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem.”
But the truth is that idea doesn’t just seem radical; it is radical. It really makes you wonder whether or not proponents of gun control ever even consider the Second Amendment before making the arguments that they do. It wasn’t long ago that Democrats tried to argue that their gun control proposals were in full compliance with the Constitution; now, however, it’s as if the Constitution has been thrown out the window completely. Simply put, the liberals’ arguments have transformed from “we want more gun regulations, but don’t worry, we will respect the Second Amendment at the same time” to “we want more gun regulations, and we want them now.”
Furthermore, liberals consistently deny the fact that there is a positive relationship between gun laws and crime rates – that is, when more restrictions and regulations on firearms are implemented, crime rates go through the roof. Such is the case in cities like Chicago and Baltimore, both of which are run by liberal Democrats and have high crimes rates as a result of strict gun laws.
On the contrary, when lawmakers create an environment that embraces the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense, crime rates generally decline. As reported by Breitbart News earlier this year, data from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) indicated that concealed carry permits increased by an astonishing 215 percent between the years 2007 and 2015, while the murder rate has declined by 14 percent during that same period.
If it is true that mass shootings happen as a result of too many guns in the hands of the American people, how is it that crime rates go down while concealed carry rates go up? Could it be that allowing the people to defend themselves is a much more rational solution to gun violence than going door to door confiscating firearms?