- WND - http://www.wnd.com -

Every gun-control argument: Nonsense!

It’s likely you and I disagree over gun control a lot more than you think we do. This argument cuts a lot deeper than any “fiscal cliff,” Middle East, taxing the rich or any of the so-called hot controversies. I realized that in early January of 1959 in Havana, Cuba, which was lawless as of New Year’s Eve, when President Batista fled, giving the island to Fidel Castro, who couldn’t get his forces out of the jungle and into Havana until Jan. 8.

A group of CBS executives arrived in that lawless Havana where an American businessman, Ira Wolpert, was acting as wet-nurse, interpreter and open-heart-masseur to any American who needed help. Wolpert stepped in to help the CBS execs. He asked them matter-of-factly if they had any firearms for self-defense; not a bad idea in any Dodge City. They looked like four convicts being electrocuted. They quivered. They convulsed. To Wolpert, it was like asking if they had enough currency. To the “suits” of CBS, however, it was like Wolpert asking if, as long as they were this far south, they’d like to fly down to the Amazon and get their heads shrunk!

We have a cultural chasm here of body, heart and soul. And up to now the “CBS view” of gun ownership has paralyzed the potential of citizen self-defense. The horror embedded in the very notion of a firearm obliterates all further thinking. Forget logic, history and multiple studies. Forget stomp-down incontrovertible proof that more-guns-equals-less-crime.

Winning arguments don’t win here. Let me show you: Chicago, New York, California – all have strict gun-control laws. Gun murders off the charts. Switzerland, Israel, American locales with concealed-carry laws. Crime plummets; especially crimes against women; especially rape.

That silence you hear is liberal minds unchanging.

The day after the massacre in Connecticut, Fox News asked a life-long law-enforcement veteran what he would do first to correct the “ease-of-committing catastrophe” in America. “The first thing we should do,” he said without hesitation, “is get rid of all these gun-free zones. They’re murderous. The principals, the staff, the teachers should all be armed. What all these murderers fear most is bullets coming back at them.” The interviewer – even on Fox, not a left-leaning institution – felt he had to throw in a mild apology for allowing such a powerful truth to be uttered. He said, “Well, a lot of Americans will be scratching their heads as they hear your remedy, Sir, but you spent your life in law enforcement, and we’re happy to present your view.”

When my more-conservative-than-I-am wife heard that, she snickered and said, “If they did arm the school principals and staff, the weapons would be stashed away so remotely they’d be worthless if needed.” And she’s absolutely right. Too many are on the wrong side of the “Grand Chasm.” America is the only country guaranteeing our right to bear arms. Too many Americans respond with nothing but a spinal-shiver. Can you imagine the principal of an American school proudly summoning his staff and teachers to the opening of the big box containing their new weapons? Can you imagine the “Ooohs” and “Aaahs” as they vied with one another to get the “feel” of their new defense-ware?

Too many Americans refuse to acknowledge what good friends guns are ready to be. This country has tried to ban alcohol, drugs and illegal aliens. How did we do? What the gun-haters can’t understand is that so-called “gun control” is futile! I can understand every other argument about every other issue on earth. But not this one.

You could draft gun-control laws made to surpass every liberal’s fondest dream, and a would-be mass assassin could almost certainly find a “clean” friend who would get legal weapons and hand them over. And did you include stolen guns in that liberal dream? Any one of the arguments against gun control should end the argument. My seldom-heard favorite involves the millions – or is it tens of million, or is it hundreds of millions? – of firearms that are already “out there.”

Let’s say you wanted to ban, for example, cherries. You could do it. You know who the organized growers are. You know what individual cherry trees look like, and they can’t run away and hide when word of the crackdown gets around.

Suppose somebody asks, “What are you going to do about the 8 billion cherries already out there?” The answer is: “I’d wait four days, until they all rot.” Guess what? Firearms don’t rot. Your great-grandfather’s Civil War pistol could be made “fire-ready” with a cleaning and lube-job. The best solution would be to come up with a gun-control plan that could actually work. That’s not available.

The second-best solution is for the potential victim – or his adult guardians – to be armed. More bullets “going the other way” would change the climate from “There’s zero chance my intended victim is armed” all the way over to, “Gee, maybe it’s time for me to find a line of work, or recreation, or way of ‘expressing myself’ other than spraying bullets all around!”

Gun-control? Sounds great.

Forget it! Come back with something possible.