From ClashDaily.com, By Michelle Zook / 26 December 2012 – Madame Feinstein — she of the brilliant “assault weapons” ban — has had another great idea this week. Why doesn’t the United States, like Australia, buy back these prohibited weapons for something like $500 a gun, and then outlaw them?
There are more than a few problems with Senator Feinstein’s thought. First and foremost, the Australians have nothing like our Bill of Rights, with its Second Amendment and the history behind it.
But beyond the theoretical problems and the Supreme Court fight that would entail, a country that is on the verge of its own Greek-style fiscal crisis cannot possibly afford a buyback of this magnitude. Looking at the numbers, Australia’s buyback program, consisting of semiautomatic guns, automatic guns and shotguns, cost their government $500 million in 1997. Using a 1% levy on income taxes, the government paid approximately $500 per gun.
How would this look in the United States? According to Gallup’s most recent poll regarding gun ownership, 47% of 315 million Americans own guns, which means 148,050,000 Americans admit to owning guns. In Australia, one in four guns fell into the “banned” category, so using very simplified numbers, we’ll assume each American admitting they own a gun only owns one. Continuing with our simplified numbers, we’ll use the Aussie numbers of one in four being banned, so 37,012,500 would need to be bought back by the government. Even if the government only offers $500 per gun (which would be woefully under fair market value for many of these weapons), it would cost taxpayers $18,506,250,000. Keep in mind that the national debt is around $16 trillion. How are we supposed to pay for this, when the Senate can’t even pass a budget?
Compare this $18.5 billion cost to the cost of simply allowing teachers who already have valid concealed carry permits to carry in schools (with the two stipulations of the principal being aware of it and being required to keep the gun on your person at all times, as I mentioned last week), and a gun buyback program seems frivolous and more unnecessary government waste. Registration isn’t the answer, not when we have newspapers publishing the names and addresses of gun owners — although it’s certainly a burglar’s dream, because then the people without guns suddenly have targets on their houses.
While “tragedy” seems too small a word to describe the events at Newtown — or Aurora — let’s not allow the liberal nannies rampant in our government and media to violate our Constitution in the pursuit of more security. Even if the American government had the money to waste, any buyback would be a violation of the spirit of the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers intended for us to maintain weapons to protect against tyranny, not willingly surrender our weapons to obtain false security. So instead of coming up with kneejerk solutions that would effectively treat a gunshot wound with a band-aid, why not solve the problem? We can blame the problem on guns, but what we’re really seeing in America — and worldwide— is a breakdown in Judeo-Christian values and a willingness to accept individual responsibility.
No buyback can save people from themselves. No government can protect the people better than they can. It’s time for the government to get back to its responsibilities outlined in the Constitution, just like it’s time for parents to start being parents again, which means making sure their children are moral, healthy and fit for society. Until then, no gun law in America can protect us, which will be a great disappointment to Madame Feinstein.
Image: Source: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/photos/operations/205million_fig2.jpg (part of 2007 operations, DEA press release: ); author: Drug Enforcement Administration; public domain.