Why Gun Banning Would Be the End of Liberty

A pile of about 4,500 firearms that were handed over as part of Australia’s buyback. (Photo: David Gray/Reuters)

A pile of about 4,500 firearms that were handed over as part of Australia’s buyback. (Photo: David Gray/Reuters)

According to the Washington Post, stopping gun violence in the United States is simple: all it takes is a good old-fashioned gun ban.

Citing a recent study by Columbia University’s Julian Santaella-Tenorio, the Post article explains that while single pieces of gun control legislation have proven almost entirely ineffective in the United States, “comprehensive gun legislation packages” with an “array of different policy changes” have proven effective in countries like Australia, South Africa, and Brazil.

Anyone who’s been paying attention knows that “comprehensive gun legislation package” is just a fancy way of saying “gun confiscation.”

It is true that national gun confiscation might reduce the amount of gun-related violence in the United States. Here’s the problem—the same logic could be applied to cars, power tools, cement trucks, pharmaceuticals, knives, and silverware, to name just a few. All of these objects account for deaths in the U.S., deaths we could limit with “comprehensive dangerous object legislation.”

This idea sounds ridiculous because we rely on cars, power tools, etc., to live our lives on a day-to-day basis. Guns fill an equally important need, but in our urban, sheltered, government-dependent society, we often lose sight of it.

The men who wrote the Second Amendment were clear as to its purpose. They had recently won a war against a tyrannical British government, and they weren’t about to leave the people defenseless if another tyranny arose.

James Madison said Federalist No. 46, “…the advantage of being armed [combined with the existence of] subordinate governments [i.e., the states] forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”

The Second Amendment exists so that American citizens can defend themselves against the “enterprises” of a too-ambitious federal government. Even if that government possesses tanks and drones, an armed citizenry serves as an effective deterrent.

The Second Amendment also protects against a too-ambitious foreign government. It’s a well-known fact that the number of licensed hunters from only a fraction of the states exceeds that of any army from any country in the world. Red Dawn may be fantastical, but the idea holds true—United States citizens could organize one hell of a resistance movement.

But just try mentioning either of these purposes to a gun-banner, and you’ll get the usual series of insults: “paranoid,” “crazy,” “conspiracy theorist.” Let’s be clear—despite the current administration’s executive overreach, we haven’t yet reached a point where Obama has instituted martial law.  By the same token, red China hasn’t yet descended on U.S. soil to collect the massive debt we owe them.

While either of those scenarios may never come to pass, sooner or later something will go down.  Oh yes, it’s just a matter of time.


See, the Founders weren’t naïve.  They knew this.  They understood human nature, and they understood that nations don’t last forever—eventually, they destabilize by tyranny from within or they are attacked from without. They realized that precautions had to be taken so that future generations could defend their liberty, so they included the individual right to keep and bear arms. That right is just as important today as it was in 1787.

Gun-related injury and death are a horrible reality, and we as gun owners are responsible for doing everything we can to keep our firearms from criminals and children. But guns—just like cars and pharmaceuticals—serve an important function in our society.  They preserve our freedom.

If we give up or allow lawmakers to take our Second Amendment rights because we believe the United States is immune to foreign or domestic tyranny, we’re either naïve or arrogant. And if history is any indication, naïve, arrogant countries don’t last long.

About the author: Jordan Michaels has been reviewing firearm-related products for over six years and enjoying them for much longer. With family in Canada, he’s seen first hand how quickly the right to self-defense can be stripped from law-abiding citizens. He escaped that statist paradise at a young age, married a sixth-generation Texan, and currently lives in Tyler. Got a hot tip? Send him an email at jordan@gunsamerica.com.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Walter Boswell March 28, 2016, 3:06 pm

    In 1947 when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, that’s as far as they got to the west coast for a reason!! They knew our citizens were armed, even though a big percentage were armed for hunting and feeding their families. Admiral Yamamato knew this and didn’t have a plan to attack further.
    I feel that Russia is laying low waiting for our IDIOT DEMOCRATS to disarm those of us citizens that are armed and will do what is necessary to protect ourselves, and families!!!! These are my thoughts and beliefs. Take ’em or leave ’em!!

  • Jonathan March 21, 2016, 11:38 am

    WAIT, wait, wait… they’re using SOUTH AFRICA and BRAZIL as examples where gun confiscation was “SUCCESSFUL”?!?! I think the author of that study hasn’t ever read a news article about South Africa or Brazil.

  • D.A. Moran March 21, 2016, 9:46 am

    We don’t have liberty to begin with. We allow The wealthy elite to control our entire live’s …

    • Jeremiah June 15, 2016, 1:10 am

      Maybe you allow the wealthy elite – whoever “they” are – to control your life and subvert your liberty, but I DON’T!!!
      Never heard such a lame pretense…

  • Larry Koehn March 19, 2016, 5:31 pm

    So if America goes to sleep or the parasites outnumber the providers by a large enough margin so that the DemoRATZ control both houses of congress and the presidency and hold an anti gun majority on the Supreme Court and pass a gun confiscation law what next? The only plausible choices are cave in or fight. If you say cave in you join a long line of sheeple giving up personal protection and prized possessions to a government that is acting illegally and contrary to the Constitution so you surrender your right to fight. All military and all law enforcement will not join the gun grabbers so their numbers are limited. Make them come for your guns and when they show up kill at least one. I know that you will probably get killed but what is the price of freedom? If every single gun owner killed one gun grabber they would run out gun grabbers long before everyone gets a shot! When that happens you can line the crooked politicians against the Vietnam wall and shoot them till they are gone. Hold an election and start over. You do not have to have an organized resistance although I am sure one would eventually form. You can get your one and if you are clever and prepare you can get more than one. If you give in to tyranny you become a slave!

  • Mongo March 18, 2016, 9:05 pm

    When the topic of gun ban or confiscation comes up, especially around anti-2nd, pose this question:
    What percentage of unarmed people are victims of crime? 100%!!!!!!!
    I pray we never have to see the day when we know for a fact we will have to fire to defend ourselves against a confiscation.
    “Every Jew a .22” if even some of the Jews killed SS members when the came to take their guns, Hitler would have to have reconsidered. No one fought the confiscation, and millions died……unarmed. 100% fact.
    Pray for God to heal this country, 1 person at a time, if that’s what it takes.
    Having lived through the after-effects of Katrina, I can testify…..when the looters saw that we were armed, they went the other way. Water and MRE’s were not worth dying for.

  • Winston March 18, 2016, 4:00 pm

    Citizens in Yemen have real Kalashnikovs and RPGs, but Saudi Arabia-UAE-and the CIA still invaded them. Granted Yemenis have bloodied the Saudis on the ground, but Saudi air raids have killed thousands. Americans have been relegated to semi auto small arms while the government domestic police have military weapons. The goal all along.

    • Jonathan March 21, 2016, 11:33 am

      Those “citizens in Yemen” are an Iranian-backed minor tribe that revolted against the popular gov’t that had been trying to clean up the aftermath of 30+ years of Salah. The Saudis, UAE, and other clandestine assistance is occurring at the request of the Yemeni gov’t.

  • Bob R March 18, 2016, 1:53 pm

    With more than 200 years of living with guns in America, it is not likely that the more than 80 million citizens that own over 300 million guns will quietly give up that freedom. We are a country born from the use of guns to gain our freedom to a country that fought many wars with guns to keep that freedom. No country that takes away that right can have a completely open society as we do. Unless this country becomes a dictatorship, gun ownership will always be a right of the people. Wasn’t it Roosevelt that said “the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself”. That same philosophy applies to the fear of guns that we propagandize every time there is an incident with the use of guns. Publish more stories of the lives saved with the use of firearms and the public will fear them less. That is why our police display their own firearms as a deterrent and not as a reason to fear them.

  • freedomfighter March 18, 2016, 9:39 am

    I wouldn’t worry too much about confiscation bullshit,,400 million guns in the US already,,they could never even dream to be able to confiscate even 1% of them,,what idiot will simply hand over his guns,,NOT GONNA HAPPEN,,,and the libtard anti gun nuts know it,,they just use our sport as a means to scare the small minded into voting for them under the pretense of wanting to protect them,,will THEY give up THEIR armed preotection,,??,,so i wouldnt worry about confiscation too much,,

    • Wayne Thomas March 18, 2016, 11:01 am

      I wouldn’t be so sure. If they made it a felony to posses your gun, most people aren’t going to want to risk going to jail or worse yet prison to defend their rights. The cop that comes to my door to take my guns better shoot first and ask questions later if he or she wants to live past that day. Most cops are saying they’ll refuse the order if it ever comes but that’s just words too. When it comes down to being able to pay your rent and feed your family vs no, you’re going to do what your employers says until you find another job. I don’t care. There’s no way in hell they’re taking mine but most won’t be willing to defend their right and fight an illegal and unconstitutional order. Especially if comes from a cop. Legal gun owners are the about the only ones that give cops respect in this day and age. It would be tough to shoot a cop because they tried to execute a warrant. I would warn them first and give them the opportunity to leave unharmed if they chose, if not…sorry, they were warned. Again, most will not go this route. And another thing to keep in mind. When they do this they’ll be sneaky. They’ll spin it so that it looks like a good thing or a temporary thing or they’ll pay large amounts per gun, amounts of our money but it won’t be like you think it will. They’ll play us and that’s a given.

      • Mike March 20, 2016, 4:48 pm

        You keep your gun you will fight and maybe die, if you turn them in you will be picked up anyway and done away with. Have,t you heard of Agenda 21? And as far as them having all of the good toys, not true I think you will be surprised at will come out when the stuff hits the fan. Although I do think most Americans are too soft and have never lived under tyranny yet, but give up the fight and you will and believe me before they ax you, you will wish you would have kept your firearms.

  • Outlaw March 18, 2016, 3:02 am

    Last time I checked drugs were illegal. If they make firearms illegal what makes them think they can stop their criminal importation any easier than they stop the importation of illegal drugs? They can’t.

    Only the law abiding can be affected by any laws outlawing or banning firearms. The criminals will always have a source of black market firearms available to them just as they will always have drugs to sell. As long as their is a dollar to be made in trafficking an item someone is going to traffic it, no matter the illegality of that item.

  • Don Woodrich March 14, 2016, 9:42 am


  • Phil March 14, 2016, 8:13 am

    “All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2Cranch) 137, 174,176 (1803)
    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
    Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p.491
    An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been written.” Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

    • JT4NRA March 18, 2016, 3:14 pm


  • Tom Horn March 14, 2016, 4:04 am

    Your Human ‘Right’ to be Safe?

    Did you watch CBS Sunday Morning, “Guns and America,”on 3/13/16?


    It struck me watching this show what it all boils down to (this firearms debate). They were interviewing former Australian Prime Minister, John Howard (who pushed through Australia’s firearms ban/confiscation laws). He said:

    “People used to say to me, ‘You violated my human rights by taking away my gun,'” Howard said. “And I’d [respond], ‘I understand that. Will you please understand the argument, the greatest human right of all is to live a safe life without fear of random murder.'”


    I ask you then, is this our “greatest human right of all?” If so, why did our forefathers, the wise framers of our U.S. Constitution, and its Bill of Rights, say nothing of this, “right?” These men seemed pretty smart and thorough, with their ingenious system of checks and balances. Why no mention of our, “greatest human right of all?”

    Why? Because they realized there is a risk of danger in the inherent nature of being a human being. The life of man, inside the vessel of the human body, is a fragile thing. How could a government ever guarantee you a right to safety, when there are so many variables stacked against the life of man (acts of nature, disease, accident, assault by humans, mammals, reptiles). Actually, you have a right to expect danger. That is why we take out insurance, to hedge against the financial loss we know to be inevitable with the pratfalls of life.

    I believe this notion of, “the right to safety,” is a concept that occurred sometime in the 50’s, or 60’s when we Americans were living in our little, “Leave It To Beaver,” suburban cocoons of safety. All just an illusion, smoke and mirrors. A promise from the government of safety, is a, “chicken in every pot,” promise. It’s like, the right to financial security, or the right to good looks. Even, “happiness” (which you can conceivably tuck, “safety”, under it’s umbrella), we only have the guarantee of the ability to pursue after.

    Last night I came into the living room, and my wife had Hillary on the TV, live from Columbus, OH. A young woman spoke of the tragic shootings of children in her community, and asked Hillary what she would do to change her community. My wife and I both felt like this woman was asking her what kind of concrete steps she would take that would have a direct impact on her community. Perhaps, job creation, mentoring programs, community building, bringing back responsible parenting, and family values, etc. Hillary responded with her full gun control agenda, mentioning our right of safety.

    Hillary especially harped on our need as Americans to make the firearms manufacturers responsible for the deaths of these murdered children. It does not take a legal scholar to see that this logic has more holes than Swiss cheese. Where would this type of frivolous lawsuit end? Would we sue every knife manufacturer when we cut ourselves, or, someone commits a horrendous act with a knife? Soon, the only knives we could buy would come without a point, or edge. Would we sue American auto manufacturers out of existence because we crashed our car, or someone used it to deliberately commit an evil act? Would we stop mowing our lawns because we couldn’t afford the $30,000 safety mower?

    The American firearms industry has been very responsive and responsible to safety issues of their firearms. Bill Ruger’s transfer bar mechanism, John Browning’s back strap safety, and the development of trigger locks are just a few examples. To hold the manufacturer responsible, because the end user used their product in a careless manner, or with evil intent is ludicrous.

    The largest mass murder in American history was perpetrated on September 11, 2001, by thugs armed with box cutters. Are the manufacturers of these box cutters responsible for the 3,000 Americans killed that day?

    You have the right to expect danger. You can choose freedom, or a nanny state. If you choose freedom, it comes with responsibility. The responsibility to teach our children to respect other human beings, that they are responsible for their own actions, and that life is precious. If you choose a nanny state, well… never mind. You will be taken care of.

    • Nic Modracek March 20, 2016, 9:49 pm

      Tom Horn – Pondering the imponderable gets you nowhere, especially when the questions asked miss the mark. Although you make some valid assertions, your misunderstanding of the core argument is contributing to the misleading conversations controlled by the political Left.

      Even if Australian Prime Minister Howard’s assertion that “the greatest human right of all is to live a safe life without fear of random murder” was correct, Australians neither live under the protection of our Constitution nor understand its unique protections for its citizens relative to theirs. Hell, Howard may not even understand the definition of RIGHTS as evidenced by his statement concerning the most valuable and unique Right of all: the Right to control your own Life and destiny as expressed in the second paragraph of the Declaration. It is described as a “self – evident” truth that the Rights of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” are gifts given to Man by the Creator (at the moment of his creation … when else?)

      It can be easily argued that the existence of this Right is the core principle or concept underscoring ALL of the individual Rights listed in the Bill of Rights. (I say “Individual Rights” because we were all CREATED as individuals – not as a group.) That is especially true of the 2nd Amendment, because YOU CANNOT HAVE A RIGHT TO CONTROL YOUR LIFE AND DESTINY IF YOU DO NOT ALSO HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND YOUR LIFE!

      The RIGHT of self-defense has been recognized almost universally by every civilization practically since the dawn of Mankind. For thousands of years of recorded Human history, the only successful defense against a charge of murder resulting in TOTAL exoneration of the accused has been and remains the proving of self-defense. Even the Sixth Commandment translated from the original Hebrew says, “Thou shalt not murder”, not “Thou shalt not kill” – thus drawing a distinction between murder and self-defense. So while Howard’s statement seems plausible, when implemented according to his Australian liberal mindset, it denies both the deterrent effect of superior force used for defense of innocent life as well as the opportunity for those innocent individuals to implement such deadly force in their own defense or for the defense of others.

      More importantly, the Australian example attempts to put government in a role it does not want and will not accept responsibility for implementing: That of providing protection for individuals. In Warren v District of Columbia (444 A 2d, 1 (DC Appl. 1981) it was decided and upheld that it is a “fundamental principle of American Law” that no level of government or subdivision thereof can be held liable for failure to provide government services (like fire protection and police protection) to any individual – only to society as a whole. This finding is not unique to the District of Columbia nor is it intended as a means of avoiding just liability. It is a principle that has been upheld by state and local courts many times across this nation. The responsibility for providing for one’s immediate safety rests first with the individual, with the police providing only an auxiliary general deterrent.

      I believe you are incorrect when you attempt to put “safety” under the “umbrella of Happiness”. Safety correctly belongs under the umbrella of SELF – DEFENSE, which in turn is under the secured protection of the 2nd Amendment. Securing our Rights and Liberties IS the prime directive of government (Declaration – paragraph two) as is effecting our safety and happiness as a PEOPLE, but exercising the role of individual responsibility for one’s existence and actions is the SOUL of Liberty and Freedom.

      I loved your comments about carrying corporate responsibility to extremes and Hillary’s warped mindset relative to it. But government only has the powers “WE the People” granted it under the Constitution, The Rights, stated and unstated, were reserved to the states and to the people.

      • JoeUSooner June 10, 2016, 10:03 am

        A magnificent post, Nic… thank you!

  • Chuck Roast March 13, 2016, 9:08 pm

    Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump and John what’s his name all need to answer all campaign and debate questions with the following response: “…If you vote for either Clinton or Barny Sanders, you are going to lose your gun(s) to gun confiscation…”) If they are asked about taxes, they need to respond “”…If you vote for either Clinton or Barny Sanders, you are going to lose your gun(s) to gun confiscation…”) When asked about foreign policy, they need to respond “…If you vote for either Clinton or Barny Sanders, you are going to lose your gun(s) to gun confiscation…”)
    If someone asks what time it is, they need to respond “…If you vote for either Clinton or Barny Sanders, you are going to lose your gun(s) to gun confiscation…”)
    I have a buddy who, back in ’08, due to his family having long been “yellow dog’ Democrats, “had” to vote for Barry. I had told him that Barry would be the most Second Amendment President in history, but he “had” to vote for Barry. After the first year of Barry’s reign, my buddy came to me and said “…You know what? I think you are right. I think he wants to outlaw guns totally”.
    Keep in mind, this guy’s family has leased out their land for deer hunters for over thirty years, and they have hunted all their lives. It took Barry himself trying to outlaw gun shows, etc. before the “yellow dog” Democrat would finally wake up. So Cruz, Rubio, Trump, et al, need to do one thing only. Answer every campaign question with “…If you vote for either Clinton or Barny Sanders, you are going to lose your gun(s) to gun confiscation…”) Cause even though often intellectually vapid, “Yellow Dog” Democrats don’t actually want their own guns confiscated. It is the ONLY issue of the 2016 campaign which is going to allow us to keep our Nation.

    • Steve March 18, 2016, 10:03 am

      You are right for sure, but what scares me are the number of Americans that want us all to turn in our guns. They want the quick fix that will never happen. As long a person of average intelligence has access to the elements. He, can create a working firearm. I knew how to make gun powder at 10 years old. And I am no Rhodes scholar. Education of the uninformed is our best recourse. Let them envision beyond a deadly home invasion to an invasion by a foreign entity. Or our own Gov’t totally out of control. Try living under marshal law every time there is a natural disaster. Do you think looters will abide by a curfew? I will answer for you,no they won’t. What will happen and has happened,is roving packs of unlawfuls will take everything they want. Included is your female family member who will be taken and raped,maybe in front of you. You will regret the day you voted to disarm yourself and your neighbors. I guarantee a mob will avoid areas that bullets are coming from. Did the stores in recent riots get looted, that were guarded by armed owners? ANSWER THAT FOR YOURSELF.
      A thief will stop scoping out a house and scan your political affiliation instead. A Hilary/Bernie voter is a safe haven for a thief, they’ll most likely meet little armed resistance. Think, before you cast a dim future for us all,with your vote.

  • Eduardo. March 13, 2016, 5:05 pm

    I can tell you that “comprehensive gun legislation packages” in Brazil did not work at all. Crimes with firearms are up to the roof and the only people in disadvantage are the defenseless law abiding citizens that often are the victims of the “bad guy with a gun” and the corrupt police as well. In my view politicians that want gun control are only trying to get more control of the good citizens. A disarmed law abiding citizen is more ease controllable. DO NOT GIVE UP YOUR GUNS.

    • Mike March 20, 2016, 4:59 pm

      Edudrdo I really appreciate you. It always seems to be some one that has lived in tyranny that sound most like our founding fathers.

  • Tom Horn March 12, 2016, 5:19 pm

    Excellent article! I have nothing to add or detract. Will share it with my friends, and bookmark it for future reference. Kudos.

  • taxx73 March 11, 2016, 4:54 pm

    This has got to be the best explanation of the 2nd Amendment that I have ever read or heard. Now if only the libtards would just understand this then we can focus on the real problem. The criminals, drug dealers, thugs and just plain mentally ill. But of course this may be too simple for them. It’s not written in legalese. Neither is the 2nd Amendment. Great article my feelings exactly. LEAVE OUR RIGHTS ALONE!!!!!!!!

    • Al March 11, 2016, 10:18 pm

      I had an interesting debate with a trendy millennial girl in a bar who was anti-gun. I told her about the VFW meeting where a retired Japanese General was hob-knobbing with American vets and one of them finally asked him: “You know, you blew up all our ships at Pearl Harbor and every plane on the runway. Why didn’t you invade?”…His Answer was: “We Japanese know you Americans have a gun in every other house and have championships with military rifles: We were not fools to get into such a quagmire”. I went on to tell her “…So while 240,000 Korean women were conscripted into prostitution in Japanese brothels, some as young as ten years old, to service a soldier every 15 minutes, 8 hours a day for years of captivity…OUR women were never gang-raped by the Japanese. Our guns kept them out!” She dropped her jaw, got up from her chair and ran to the ladies room like her pants were on fire. It’s frightening that these trendies are swayed by sentimentality over reason, but this is the mentality of the people who are anti-gun. I think her feminist/PC indoctrination got a dose of cognitive dissonance that night.

  • Terril Hebert March 11, 2016, 4:27 pm

    Is this what GunsAmerica has become?

    • S.H. Blannelberry March 11, 2016, 4:53 pm

      What do you mean by that question?

    • Phil March 14, 2016, 8:19 am

      Terri – You don’t like a roundtable of ideas and discussion?

Send this to a friend