Miss Lewis attempts to assure the reader that she really is a fan of guns before she unleashes this great idea, of course. She knows people with guns, she claims, and she doesn't "fear" them. Why, she grew up around them, she says. Of course, they were always locked up in a safe so no one could get to them. Still, she says her Father taught her about "weapon safety from a very young age."
Sadly, her Father neglected to teach her about the Constitution or about world and American history because if he did her Big Brother gun tracking program idea would have never occurred to her in the first place.
To buttress her case, Lewis recounts a story where a local Florida man accidentally shot himself with a .22 and seems to imagine that this is something extraordinary. But, this sort of silly singling out of an accident obscures the fact that humans are sometimes careless. Further, it's a fact that gun accidents are not nearly as wide spread as other types of accidents. Car accidents, for instance, far out weigh gun accidents by many magnitudes of percentage. Does Miss Lewis want to restrict cars because of these accidents? I doubt it ever even occurred to her.
But, let's get to her brilliant idea.
Of those I know who are responsible with their weapons, I could guarantee that not a single one would be opposed to a simple proposal using GPS tracking chips, which are incredibly small and have become rather inexpensive to manufacture.
I find it hard to believe she knows anyone with a gun (except maybe her Constitutionally illiterate Father).
So how would this "responsible idea" work? Big government, of course.
Of course, the database and tracking system would take a bit of time to implement, but wouldn't it be worth it to have this substantial resource at hand?
"Of course" the system she proposes would take a "bit" of time? How about the costs? Then we'd have to have a new government agency to govern this program we cannot forget. That means more government employees, more of those "resources" Lewis casually mentions going to government instead of you and me, more money eaten up, and -- lest we not forget -- more TAXES needed to fund this program.
Bloating Big Brother government. Yeah, real “responsible,” Miss Lewis.
Then we get this bit of starry-eyed illogic:
When weapons are stolen, we could track them down more easily, and in the incident of a violent act, we would be able to more reliably piece together the chain of events leading up to the gunfire.
OK, so we have this "database" and these GPS chips in guns. Then there is a shooting incident. We turn on the GPS system. And we get the feedback locating thousands of guns in the area of the crime. Which gun was involved? We don't know. So what do we have to do to find out? Launch a giant drag net with hundreds of storm troopers and confiscate EVERY gun in the targeted area, violating the rights of thousands of people at once. And this will happen with every gun incident!
This woman hasn't a clue, does she?
Now, let's review why people are against gun registries. We have but to look to one historical lesson that occurred just before a little incident that has come to be called Kristal Nacht.
Stephen P. Halbrook wrote of what happened just before Hitler's henchmen began their campaign to murder Germany's Jews prior to WWII. It just so happened that a previous gun registration law made Hitler's campaign of mass murder just a bit easier. You see Hitler was able to sweep through the country and disarm his targeted victims because every firearm was registered with the government. Armed with those government records, Hitler was able to quickly and easily identify which homes had those he wanted eliminated and which might pose a problem because a firearm was present.
Finding out which Jews had firearms was not too difficult. The liberal Weimar Republic passed a Firearm Law in 1928 requiring extensive police records on gun owners. Hitler signed a further gun control law in early 1938.
Thanks to Miss Lewis, any next Hitler might be able to flip on the government computer and id his victims from the comfort of his office. How helpfully "responsible" of her.
But, even if we count out the admittedly extreme Hitler example, we still have the rights to self-protection and freedom from government oppression guaranteed in the Constitution. I give Miss Megan four little words: "Shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment is not an option, Miss Lewis. It is a right duly recognized by that thing we follow as the law of the land!
Meagan wraps up her call to Big Brotherism by telling us what she isn't "afraid of."
As one who is capable of handling a firearm responsibly, I would love for others to be able to see weapons in a different light. I am not afraid of guns; we have only to fear the people who choose to use them inappropriately.
Wanna know what I am "afraid of," Miss Lewis? I am afraid of people like you, do-gooders that don't care about human rights or the Constitution and have no clue about human nature or history attempting to make “responsible” rules for the rest of us to be ruled by. I’m afraid of the yoke of oppression people like you are readying for us all to wear. I am afraid of people like you who have no knowledge with which to base your “responsible” ideas upon, yet you go off attempting to force them on us anyway. All I can say is that you and your Dad need an education and until you get one, leave the “responsible” ideas to people who know better.
