Gun control advocates’ crusade for “gun safety” is a sham. Although they won’t admit it – lest they lose popular support – the antis believe that guns are only safe when they’re in the hands of the police and/or the military. Which is a really scary thought, what with the Holocaust, ISIS and the unfathomable suffering of Mexico’s unarmed rural population as our guide. But it’s not a thought that occurs to John Sutija, writing for fiusm.com . . .
. . . the Second Amendment is outdated. Militias are redundant in the modern developed world, but the right to bear arms goes beyond that. The guns used at Lexington and Concord were hunting rifles, and regardless of your participation in the sport, there is no denying that its practice is beneficial. When deer populations skyrocket, the creatures destroy crops worse than rats, and coyotes are more violent pests. I realize that these are less of an issue in Miami than in my native Iowa, but the U.S. is made of much more than South Florida.
I don’t believe anyone needs to own a gun. Some careers may benefit from their use, but that’s on a professional level, not a personal one. If you need a gun at work, you should pick up your sidearm when you punch in and drop it off when you punch out. But what about the every man, those hunters I spent my last paragraph defending? They wouldn’t own their guns or their relatives. I say all ranged weapons – shotguns, rifles, pistols and bows – need to be collected by the government, catalogued and put in a library. You want to shoot Bambi? Fine, but I’ll need to see your gun-library-card.
So there you have it: a factual error (the firearms used in Lexington and Concord were military rifles) and a gun control advocate’s plan for the thorny issue of hunting – the only “gun right” they support.
Until they don’t. When invasive species invade areas where gun control is the order of the day, the government calls in “professional hunters.” Can I imagine a world where American hunters are as controlled as Mr. Sutija would like them to be, and then supplanted? Of course. Try this on for size:
To get such a license would require in-depth background checks and mental evaluations. You would likely have to make an appointment, and you yourself would never be allowed into the actual gun vault. You would tell the person at the register what you intend to do and they would go in back and bring you their recommendation, chosen from the limited stock they have. Things like Uzis, AKs, P90s or anything that has “armor-piercing” in its name would be ridiculous, and unless your game weighs over 500 pounds, most high-power rifles are, too. You’d be handed the weapon and a box a munitions and pointed toward gun range. When you’re happy with your choice, then comes the paper work.
Just in case you’re wondering, yes, Mr. Sutija is yet another over-educated elitist who believes that gun owners are selfish, emotionally and mentally retarded rednecks.
Does this make the people safer? Yes, it pulls the weapons out of the home. Does it let you fulfill your primal instincts? Yes, have fun Billy-Joe. Is it the perfect end-all? No, I’m not saying it’s the best solution, but it’s better than our current means of gun oversight – and that’s what the nation needs right now.
Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms must be defended from those who argue that The Second Amendment needs amending. Whether they admit it or not.