Gun Control...It's The "Control" Part That Disturbs Me

This was a thought that occurred to me the other day. I've long believed that the political left has been obsessed with the idea of government exerting ever-increasing amounts of control over our lives. Their efforts to undermine parents as the primary educators of their children (in favor of the largely NEA-controlled public school system), their obsession with this mythical wall between Church and state (which they claim should prevent even religious ideals from influencing the function of government, even though they conveniently look the other way whenever government intrudes upon Church matters, such as when the abominable Supreme Court of California forced Catholic Charities to provide coverage for contraceptives for its employees), and their constant efforts to force their views on us via judicial fiat - such as the aforementioned Catholic Charities example - when they can't succeed in promoting their agenda via the ballot box serve as only a few of the many disturbing signs that they see government oversight as necessary to "save us from ourselves."

I've never been a vocal participant in the gun control debate, as other issues have always held a higher priority for me. Still, I have my opinions on the second amendment, and to me it would take a tremendous leap in logic to assert that the constitutional right to bear arms applies only to militia and not to private citizens - especially given the fact that many of the framers of the Constitution were themselves private gun owners. With that in mind, I started to think about how the left's obsession with preventing law-abiding citizens from owning guns played into their overall agenda. They have to know that their efforts to promote gun control legislation will do absolutely nothing to prevent criminals from using guns to commit crimes, since a considerable number of crimes are already being committed with firearms that were obtained illegally. So if gun control legislation does nothing to curb the use of guns in crimes, then the law can only be harmful to those law-abiding citizens that criminals have an annoying tendency to target.

Now, I can't help but think that if such a law was passed by the likes of Castro (pick one), Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, or Hugo Chavez, then it could only be a means of suppressing resistance among citizens against unpopular measures (such as, ironically, depriving them of the right to bear arms). Given the left's repeated admiration for such dictators and their proven track record of passing unpopular measures despite the will of the voters, one is left to wonder if the detrimental effect of gun control legislation (namely, that of preventing law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves against those who would deprive them of their rights, whether the oppressor is a criminal - after all, when was the last time an armed robber walked into a bank with a search warrant? - or the government itself) is by chance or by design.

Having posed this question, let me just state that I would welcome anyone who can convince me that there aren't ulterior motives to pushing gun control legislation, because I find this entire thought process very disturbing and would just as soon have some of peace of mind on this issue. God bless!


In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald