One of the silliest arguments coming from gun advocates is that we don’t need more gun controls since criminals will always find a way to get guns. The argument is used so often that it seems some people truly believe this logic is a valid rationale for rebuking any further gun control measures.
But perhaps Republicans are right (though I’m inclined to think this is more of an excuse than credible justification). Perhaps we should get the government out of areas where individuals are likely to act regardless of laws or regulations.
We could start by removing any and all government involvement in abortions. After all, even if you make abortions illegal people are still going to get abortions – and gun advocate logic tells us that given this reality the best course of action is to remove government completely.
We could do the same for illegal drugs. There is pretty strong data that shows even with increased volumes of laws, regulations, and enforcement drugs are still being purchased and used at an alarming rate. Next we could eliminate border patrol. If we can’t prevent 100 percent of illegal immigrants from piercing the veil of the moral utopia we call the United States of America then why bother stopping any.
We could also do away with the puerile obsession with voter registration laws. Even the most ardent supporter will admit such laws are not perfect and if our Congress has taught us anything over the past two years it’s that the perfect is the enemy of the good – an enemy that must be defeated at all costs.
And what are we really preventing with all of these laws against gay marriage? Homosexual Americans are still living together, raising kids, and being intimate. Excluding them from tax breaks and visitation rights hasn’t prevented a single person from being gay so why waste so much time and tax payer dollars to fight it?
But this is the problem with illogical logic. Its application defies reason. Gun advocates don’t care about personal liberties, the Constitution, or freedom anymore than gun control advocates. They disagree on the acceptable levels of government involvement – and those levels change based on the topic.
If these advocates want to stick to their guns and insist that laws that don’t prevent 100 percent of the crimes they are tasked with preventing aren’t worth pursing they must also accept sweeping changes to a litany of other laws that are bound to change if crafting an infallible law is the new standard that government must meet – or admit that they are complete hypocrites.