Gun Control Is Very Immoral.

          Here is my brief argument against gun control solely from a moral perspective. Only mentally and emotionally matured adults should read this article. I’m not trying to be facetious or offensive either. I really don’t want people who are just going to spam the comments by calling me a child-murderer or a right-wing monster to read this thing.

          Supporting gun control is undoubtedly an evil position to hold. When anti-gun organizations and anti-gun people make specific policy suggestions regarding the American civilian’s ownership of weapons it often ends up being a prohibition on scary black rifles and sometimes when these individuals feel very comfortable and confident they just go out and say that we need to ban all firearms. Under either proposition, there are people with objects that are no longer legal to possess but laws still require something greater than words…

          At some point down the road, members of law enforcement (with scary black rifles) must actually go out and take these illegal items because simply writing down words on paper is not enough because words/laws are not forceful, they have no effect (This is obviously a violation of any oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution but let’s not pretend honor and justice is going to stop everyone). I hope you see where I’m going with this. Bans on firearms deemed unfit for civilian use will require confiscation in order to actually make them go away. This confiscation of people’s property is not justified because in nearly any situation the victim would have THEIR morally-obtained private property stolen from them whether or not the confiscation is a mandatory buy-back. A mandatory buy-back, like the one imposed by the Australian government under the direction of Prime Minister John Howard, still required the threat of government violence against those who were uninterested in getting cash for guns. Innocent people have absolutely no obligation to surrender any piece of property. If a person hasn’t committed any crimes then they are guilty of nothing and they shall lose no rights nor any property and any violence or threats of violence directed towards that person is unjustifiable. Simple as that!

          You may think, “Awe, but you see, it is for the greater good! We are saving lives with this ban on assault weapons so it is entirely justified.” And to this I say, that is not an argument. No one I’ve met actually believes that the ends justify the means. They just bring it up for their political position’s sake because it is expedient to do so. If I told you that black people committed 51% of violent crime while only making up 13% of the population so we should be placing them in internment camps you would probably call me evil because I would be inhibiting the lives of innocent people. If I relied on the-ends-justify-the-means reasoning like what most if not all anti-gunners use then I could reply to your objection by saying “Hey man, I’m just trying to save lives here. There is no reason to let people who are black roam our streets.” If you are ideologically consistent and you agreed with the ends being enough to justify the actions, then you have 2 choices. You can agree with the above proposal about putting blacks in internment camps in order to ensure public safety or you could refute the statistics as not being credible evidence. Obviously I do not agree with the detaining of blacks so please don’t misinterpret my argument to mean such a thing.

          Now, just to extend the-ends-justify-the-means reasoning to its conclusion, I’ll say this: In order to stop all rapes, murders, thefts, child abductions, robberies, and assaults we can just euthanize all humans. Humans are prone to violence so we must be proactive in stopping potential criminal acts. The crime rate will be zero after this action is taken. If you claim your true reasoning is crime prevention then this is a really solid idea, hands down. Hopefully, you take issue with punishing innocent people and now understand that ideological consistency is critical.

          Furthermore, if your idea of gun control includes grandfathering in all existing scary black firearms while banning the future sale or transfer of restricted gun types then what you are doing is calling on the government to use violence on those who sell their justly-acquired possessions. Here we are again. The victim of unjust government violence still hasn’t committed any real crimes. There is no victim in the situation of people selling and buying firearms. Where there are people merely engaging in commerce with other consenting adults who are selling and buying property that is theirs and theirs alone, you have no victim and no crime, ergo no forceful intervention is justified by anyone so long as everyone involved is innocent and legitimate.

          Thank you for reading my persuasive article on gun control. If you felt as though your mind has been changed, please let me know in the comment section. If you believe I am way of base with my assertions, please take the time to write out your criticism in a clear manner. And if you already agree with my point but you felt as though I missed something, feel free to let me know.