Hillary's 2nd

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, this was a tough topic for me to jump on. Nevertheless, all the talk about gun control in this Presidential election cycle warrants comment. I watched the debates and rallies on both sides and was frankly appalled by the calm demeanor the candidates had while they discussed certain issues. I’m scared to think my freedoms, and the freedoms of all American gun owners, can so idly be laid aside to benefit the agenda of a select few. After all, this topic is not about guns, it’s about freedoms. These are freedoms select members of the American public are in danger of losing.

I will begin by saying this is purely a theory. I’m not saying I am right, and I’m not trying to start a debate. The reality of this subject is so complex that it would be hard for even the most educated to fully understand. Also, it must be considered that the countries that have used such programs didn’t have the same concerns modern America faces. The combinations of possible scenarios are limitless. I am writing this to make my readers question what they are told. It is my hope that others will do similar research as I have and realize the gravity of the political climate that is changing every day in America.

It also needs to be said that SkinFlint Outdoors is not a political page. This is not an effort to advocate for any candidate. This is simply presenting a theory about a measure that will in all likelihood limit the freedoms of our citizens, and does nothing to preserve the outdoor lifestyle so many Americans still cling to in the modern age of smartphones and video games. By extension, if guns are harder and more expensive to get it stands to reason there will be fewer hunters in the woods. Fewer hunters means there would be less revenue generated through the sale of licenses and other permits. This means there will be less funding for the operation and conservation of parks, animals, educational and recreational activities that are valued by so many. So the great gun debate goes much further than anything being reported to the public.

Hillary Clinton stated she was planning to stand up to the NRA.  She also was quoted as saying “Australia’s a good example.” Such statements were met with applause from a frightening number of reasonable adults in the American voting pool. These people just ate up every word she said without a moment’s thought. I knew one such person who thought this way. I was personally shaken when she and I spoke about topics like drug abuse and she said things like “it’s better for kids to be on the streets doing drugs rather than killing animals.”

The same young lady started spouting words like “misogyny” and accusing most republicans of this, as she was angry over people’s distaste for Hillary Clinton or Rosie O’Donnell. It seemed like not liking Hillary Clinton or Rosie O’Donnell was enough to be labeled an enemy of the state. (Frankly, hating Rosie because she’s a woman is laughable to me as I don’t really count her as a woman.) I began to wonder if all people of this political attitude thought like this, and I am sad to say that in my conversations over time since I have found an overwhelming number of liberal thinking folk who are as closed-minded. These are the ones, members of our very own community, who would blindly see freedoms stripped from honest hard-working American citizens to follow the illusion of “common-sense” laws.

So, I was able to see one example of the voting population who would blindly follow. But, like all sales approaches, the magic is in the delivery. With regards to gun control Hillary Clinton has made insinuations that the National Rifle Association screams for “confiscation” when she speaks of gun control. She blames the NRA for public paranoia, making it seem like the NRA wants us to believe the ATF is going to crash every door down in America and physically take your guns. This is her ploy to make select members of the public lower their guard so she can enact her plan. I can say, with a fair degree of certainty, nobody is going to break down your door. At least not at first.

Here’s what I’ve found in reading about Australia. Keep in mind this is only the Australian example Hillary Clinton spoke about. Things may be different if other elements are included. It goes without saying the overall process would be far more complicated that the Australian example. My objective is to present a possible scenario, nothing more. Should such a program be implemented it would look much more civilized than a strict seizure of individuals collections. The ATF will not be kicking in doors, and nobody will be dragged into the street. The important part is we realize that no matter how well structured the program would seem it has one clear objective, which is to dissolve the American people’s 2^nd Amendment freedoms.

The buy-back program, as it has been called, is simply made to sound good and equitable. You may think “wow, I have a chance to sell my guns back to the government and get my money at least.” This way it doesn’t seem so hostile to the members of the public who say gun owners are fanatics. It will also seem like the government isn’t being tyrannical and is giving the public a chance to cooperate. The laws would also be written so you can still own a gun. Great, I can just register and keep my guns, right? Well, not exactly. Here’s what happened in Australia, and I can fully see it happening in our own grand county.

Again, this is a layman appraisal. I am by no means a social scientist and my word should not be taken as gospel. I encourage everyone to do their own homework before you hit the poles. The disarmament of Australia actually began in 1996 and continued until after 2011. Naturally, there were a number of groups who said “hell no, you can’t have my guns.” When they tried to form groups to defend their gun ownership rights the Courts plainly turn down their proposals and sent them packing. There were actually a series of gun purchases on the state and federal level. The two major buy-backs in Australia took over 700,000 guns away from the public. The government bought the guns and did not force anyone to sell their guns through threats.

In other words you could keep your guns. The sale back to the government was not mandatory. You could register the guns you elected to keep, no problem. Well, maybe one little problem. You see, the government enacted strict firearms laws with no grandfather clause. So if you had a gun that was a family heirloom which you owned for 20 years but it didn’t meet the criteria to be legally registered the gun was contraband and you would be subject to prosecution for possessing it. In a nut shell the government had taken nearly a million guns, then made laws so strict that most every other gun that was left over would be illegal. For example, a pistol could not be larger than a .38 caliber and any semi auto pistol couldn’t have a barrel less than 4.75 inches. Barrels on revolvers couldn’t be less than 3.93 inches.

Any self-respecting person who had the mental capacity to finish their breakfast without hurting themselves would know that such restrictions wouldn’t make a bit of difference as far as keeping the public safe. Therefore it seems reasonable the criterion was set to make more guns illegal, thus making it more difficult for the citizenry to own a firearm. But it didn’t stop at handguns. There are a number of similar laws governing rifles, shotguns, and about any other firearms you can think of. Here’s the kicker, a study done in 2006 conducted by Dr. Jeanine Baker and Dr. Samara McPhedran, reported in the British Journal of Criminology, showed a limited impact from the 1996 firearms laws on homicide rates. You heard it right, all the guns being gone didn’t really help.

But wait, the fun doesn’t stop there. Consider these numbers and tell me if you’d want to willing sell Hillary Clinton your guns. The Australian government gun buy-back program cost about 500 million dollars. In good form the politicians simply raised an obscure tax to raise the money to buy back guns. Hold on, did I just read that right? They raised a tax? Yes they did. They raised their Medicare levy for a full year to finance the buyback. So in essence the Australian people paid a higher tax so the government could use the extra money to buy guns from the public. Think about that and tell me if you’d want to pay an extra fee for whole year so you could buy your guns. I haven’t really heard anyone else ask where the money to fund this project would come from.

Hillary Clinton herself said the governments had offered “a good price.” Well, break out your calculators boys and girls, because this just gets better and better. In 1996 the Australian government spend 500 million dollars on the first government gun buy-back. They used that money to purchase to purchase 660,959 guns from the Australian public. I don’t know where you learned to do math, but where I’m from that comes out to an average of $75.64 per gun. I’ll let you, the reader, draw your own conclusions on that one. All I know is if I tried to defraud someone like that it would be called Theft by Deception.

So let me summarize my POSSIBLE scenario. You, Johnny Gun-owner, work hard and obeys the laws, and amasses a collection of firearms. The public allows this democratic administration to be elected to the office of President. The wheels of legislation turn and some form of government gun-control program gets enacted in America. It looks innocent and everyone follows suit and sells their guns. Then laws are enacted to make anything else you own illegal. Your 2^nd Amendment rights have not been technically violated, as you still have the right to keep and bare arms, just the list of legal arms is very, very small. Meanwhile, all the criminals make out like bandits, no pun intended. They sell anything they can steal back to the government and keep anything with street value.

Under this government buy-back system that right will never be taken away from you. What you won’t have is your gun collection or any way to obtain guns from a reasonable selection of legal pieces. Further, the price of guns will sky rocket due to supply and demand. The guns hidden from the government will rot in attics, basements and closets as the penalty for having them will be so steep nobody would dare show them. Even if the specifics of the 8^th amendment mitigate the harsh punishments for owning illicit weapons the ammunition will be priced well beyond the budgetary confines of the average working citizen.  America will be effectively gun free, and not a single door will be kicked in.

The very same people, who pride themselves on using logic to make their decisions, won’t be any better off. Most wouldn’t realize those who do own guns for self-defense may very well find themselves in possession of an illegal firearm which they must sell to back to the government for pennies on the dollar. Effectively, they will be as defenseless as everyone else.

Please, everyone, do lots of researches before you go to the poles to select our next President. Take the time and read the Constitution (It’s available online) so you can see what is really being taken from you. Ask question and listen to the arguments from all sides. A large portion of the American population was categorized as being in the “basket of deplorables” by someone who would easily and happily trample the rights given to them. Take the time to make sure you’re not so callously disrespected and swept aside. God bless America.