Will President Obama Regulate Guns Out Of Existence?
When he was a state senator in Illinois, he supported a ban on the sale of handguns and all semi-automatic guns as well as a ban on selling guns within five miles of a school or a park. While the president obviously can’t just ban them, he can use regulations to make their lives more difficult.
Lott never really answers his own question. Being an economist, he examines the reasons Obama’s proposed FFL rule changes are unnecessary and pointless: FFL losses to theft are as much as 51 times less than other retail businesses overall, firearms stolen from FFLs are a miniscule fraction of those used to commit crimes. He finally notes the painfully obvious point that Obama simply looks to regulate the ever-lovin’ bejeezus out of FFLs; to eliminate them by the death of a billion bureaucratic paper cuts.
But he doesn’t answer the question: Will — can — the president regulate guns out of existence?
Alcohol Prohibition and the War on (Some) Drugs come to mind. Even in theory (assuming a continuingly complacent Congress and judicial branch, a suitable Constitutional Amendment, and a Putinesque civilian national security force) at most he can regulate lawful commerce in defensive arms into oblivion.
America has the highest number of firearms per capita in the world. Conservative estimates put the number over 350 million firearms in civilian hands. Higher estimates put the number closer to 750 million two decades ago. Personally, I think the truth is somewhere in between on the higher end of the range.
Still pretending, let’s say Americans generally are more like Aussies than New Yorkers in being compliant. Twenty percent of guns turned in leaves anywhere from 280 million to 600 million firearms in the hands where they belong. Without a black market bringing in more.
The gun grabbers who want to believe that the number of firearms owners is decreasing would have us believe (despite record sales for years) that only 30% of households have guns. (Clearly they’ve never been to Georgia or New Hampshire.) Call it 94 million armed citizens. Twenty percent compliance leaves around 75 million armed citizens. 75 million who won’t turn in their guns, so someone will have to come take them.
You’re going to need a bigger civilian national security force, Barry.
Maybe of those 75 million, only Three Percent(ers) will actively resist. That’s only two and quarter million armed and pissed off folks. They would probably get one or two jackbooted thugs apiece before going down.
Hell, Barry, you may need a draft for your civilian national security force. And Obamacare isn’t going to handle the medical needs of the survivors.
Odds are, ATF kitty-stompers would lead the confiscation teams. Given tactics like that, how long would it take for IIIpers to take the battle to the thugs? Why, some of the (previously) nonviolent resistors might be motivated to participate. That 1 resistor:2 thugs ratio is going to go a lot higher.
The heck with the brownshirts, Barry; you’d need to call out the active military.
Of course, taking the famous Twenty-nine Palms Survey at face value, only around 26% of the troops would participate. Of 2.1 million active and reserve troops, that will hypothetically yield 546,000 thousand door-kicking oathbreakers.
Versus at least two and quarter million pissed-off shooters.
One might wonder what our NATO and other allies are going to do when Obama pulls a Trump and withdraws all those troops to steal guns back home. One needn’t wonder what North Korea’s Kim Jong-un would think, though: “A united Korea!” Daesh now…
Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!