Most times, we seek to solve issues by breaking down the problems into small, "bite sized" issues. General Eisenhower, however, had a different approach to large philosophical questions; instead, he would make them larger. In using this same strategy in regards to gun control, we see the ridiculous nature of the proposed solution.

Imagine if the Uninted States were to disband its' military. All jets, tanks, boats, submarines, etc. were scrapped, and all soldiers relieved of duty. The National Guard, Army, Navy, and all other military branches disbanded. This dissolution of the military was then publicized for all to see and understand. What would be the outcome of this decision?

Although I am speculating, it is not unreasonable to think that there would be a marked increase in terrorist attacks and crime. Without the deterrent of lethal force, the criminal element of the human species would have far less to fear. Additionally, it is a reasonable conclusion that the risk of a full-scale invasion (whether by a terrorist organization or a nation) would increase. Again, the lack of any means of defense would render our nation vulnerable.

In this scenario, national security is a direct analogy to personal security, and the threat of violation of the sovereignty of our nation is an analogy to the violation of a citizen's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The publication of the dissolution of the military is a direct analogy to the posting of gun-free zone signs and information around gun-free zones.

This absurd scenario displays a principle that the federal government has always stood by: peace through strength. When the United States acts a force for justice in the world, the evil factions listen and are forced to adapt, knowing that the weapons, tools, and resources available are dangerous.

In returning to the issue at hand, the hypothetical situation above clearly displays the outcomes of any proposed gun control measures. Removing the threat of lethal force only encourages evildoers to continue and expand their plans. Publicizing the lack of weapons only tells violent men and women that they have no fear of recompense. These outcomes are both self-evident and unacceptable to any reasonable human being.

Instead of disarming citizens, we should adopt the same principle that has lead to a secure and stable nation that can act as a force for good in the world; peace through strength. Equip citizens with the knowledge, training, and resources to defend themselves, and publicize it to the world. 

In the end, the right to life is the single most foundational right a citizen has - all other rights stem from it. Without life, there is no basis, nor need, for any rights. Therefore, we should do nothing that would endanger the lives of our citizens, but enact legislation that protects lives. Removing the means by which a citizen can protect their life is a violation of natural law, the constitution, and common sense. 

If our government is so concerned with reducing violence, the best course of action would be to again take the stance of peace through strength. Punish violent criminals to the fullest extent of the law, and increase penalties for all criminals who assault, attack, rape, or murder, especially with firearms. Publicize the law clearly and enforce it thoroughly against those who would violate the lives of others. The best deterrent to violence will always be to show any would-be criminals that the risk of jail or death is not worth the reward they seek to accomplish through crime.