| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quick Thought Exercise: Getting Rid of Guns |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gregory Morris, 8/14/07 10:44:45 am |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What steps would have to be taken to truly rid our country of guns? The Pros and Cons of actually getting rid of all firearms are irrelevant for the exercise. The argument I'll make here is, of course, absurd. I cannot even fathom a series of events that would lead to any of these actions. The reason for the extreme nature of my proposal is that I am suggesting a means to get rid of ALL guns. Simply outlawing them would only take guns out of the hands of those who abide by the law, or get caught by the police.
First, let us start with the very first article in the bill of rights. You must destroy all dissent, by silencing half of the country who would protest wildly. No speech, assembly or petition could be allowed. How you could manage to do this in the age of the internet and against the political power of groups such as the ACLU is beyond me. There is simply no way to get gun owners to quietly acquiesce to a gun confiscation program. So the first amendment would need to be either abolished or ignored to pass speech/sedition laws.
Second, the specifically enumerated right to keep and bear arms must be abolished. The second amendment to the constitution would obviously need to be repealed. This couldn't happen without the first amendment being abolished first, and even then it would be difficult. In addition, there would necessarily need to be language put into law that would override all of the state's version of the second amendment. This can only be done by first repealing the tenth amendment. These actions would still not entirely remove the right to keep and bear arms. I'm also guessing that to deny the people their natural rights (i.e. existing, regardless of the bill of rights), the ninth amendment would need to be repealed as well.
Third, the fourth amendment which bars unreasonable search and seizure, would have to be suspended so that a nation-wide gun confiscation could take place. Of course, this would be preceded by a mandatory registration to make it easier to get most of the guns, but clearly it would not net them all. Many people would never register their guns, so the police (who still have their guns, for now) would have to execute random or tip-based searches and confiscations. The police force on its own wouldn't be able to handle the volume of searches and confiscations required. Once this is realized, the various branches of the armed services would be stationed around the country to put down any dissent, and to actually execute some of the confiscations. Since we are getting rid of guns, the military would be exempt, but the police would not. So the military would also need to be on hand to disarm the police force. The only way, at this point, to keep the all of the soldiers where they need to be is by dissolving the third amendment, and stationing them in the houses of ex- gun owners.
Fourth, The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process. There is no need for due process since anyone who still has their gun after the first round of confiscations is de-facto a criminal. Since the fourth amendment is no longer in play, due process hardly matters, so we can also go ahead and throw out the Sixth and Seventh Amendments which previously guaranteed a speedy and fair trial by jury.
The people who silently turned in their guns would be spared from prosecution, but anyone who didn't hand over their guns, or spoke out against the confiscations would be in violation of the law and subject to arrest. The number of arrests for non-compliance would likely number in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Special camps would need to be set up across the country to house all of the newly-made criminals (not only the non-compliant, but also those who speak out against compliance.) I can't imagine that any federal agency would be able to manage such camps in an entirely humane way. Supplying the camps with enough food, water, and medical supplies would border on impossible. Of course, there is one amendment left that makes this a problem. It would be much easier to eliminate the eighth amendment than try to manage the huge mess that's been created. Now that we've done away with 1-10, 11-27 become entirely irrelevant.
Ok, I think I've pushed my thoughts passed to realm of absurdity. I'll stop now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | [Comments are closed after a month.] |
|
|
| < "The Dangers of Gun Safes" | | "Talk About Shooting Yourself In The Foot!" > |
|
|
|
|
