In a word…

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.

… Nope.

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.

Just like heroin and prescription opioids.

The black markets in weapons would thrive as they do in the gunless Australian paradise. Probably to the point that Mexican cartels would start shipping guns back north of the border.

But that’s merely commerce. Let’s pretend he somehow accomplished what no one has ever managed with a complete ban on weapons or anything else. All commerce — while, gray, and black — goes away.

The existing guns won’t go away, if New York’s attempt to merely register “assault weapons” is an indicator. Australia’s approximately 20% compliance rate should be another hint.

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…

No, Obama can’t regulate guns out of existence. But with enough psychotic enablers he can regulate civil war and world conflict into existence.  Because some of us will never forget.


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!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

6 thoughts on “In a word…”

  1. “Given tactics like that, how long would it take for IIIpers to take the battle to the thugs?”

    The “leaders” would have a big fat problem on their hands. The battle will immediately and sustainedly be taken to the order givers.

  2. The whole issue of gun control is dead, no matter what anyone says. All they can do now is make the obtaining and recreational use of a firearm less convenient. The most realistic gungrabbbers I know have given up on taking guns now, and say they’re concentrating on making sure my grandchildren won’t want them.

    Between the garage machine shop and the 3D printer, every modern firearm can be made by the competent hobbyist, even modern polymer-frame weapons. I would be surprised if retail stocks fell off much, if at all after the legal manufacturers were removed. Ammunition poses some different technical challenges but nothing insuperable.

    It’s over and they know it. Somehow our side hasn’t got that message yet.

  3. Yes, RustyGunner… and THEN… somewhere, in a garage or workroom somewhere in the suburbs, or down a dusy lane in a rural woodland community… someone is tinkering with new ideas and new technologies.

    Guns and gunpowder replaced most of the heavy blade weapons and armor a very long time ago. Something will replace the guns we know and love now, eventually.

    Guns will never completely vanish, of course, just as knives, arrows, and even spears are still with us today. But something will come along that will be that much better than guns at some point. And I hope all the controllers will choke on it. 🙂

      1. Personally I’m waiting for a phased plasma rifle, though 40 watts would only deliver about 3 foot pounds if the pulse is a tenth of a second long. So I want it in the 40 kilowatt range.

      2. That is way too much weapon. It would remove the entire planet. Of course, it would make it much easier to see Venus. What you really need is a light saber. But the Kyber crystal necessary to build one is rare and found on a distant galaxy far, far away. Most of them have been mined long, long ago.

        I know, Marvin Martian and Star Wars were both favorites of mine, and also, you can find details of anything on google.

Leave a Reply

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