Hilary Clinton's/ Fred Witzell's view on gun-control

While in search for another Texas Blog, I stumbled upon Fred Witzell's  "The Texas Fred Blog," a man who considers himself to be a highly opinionated and very CONSERVATIVE (and I do mean conservative to his very core) blogger. Although I cannot see me agreeing with most (if not all) of his post, and I normally find myself quite indulged with his writing for sheer entertainment! However, strangely enough his post about Hilary Clinton and her talk about possible "gun-confiscations" really caught my attention (probably due to the fact that I actually agree with most of what he is saying.)

Fred Witzell, on October 18th, 2015 writes about an article (written by FoxNews) that talks about how Hilary Clinton said that "mandatory buy-back programs like ones in Australia are "worth looking into."" And if she were to be elected for President in 2016, she would "impose gun-confiscation efforts." Despite Fred Witzell having some inaccurate information about Australia's rise in percentages having to do with crime rates, I agree that restriction and prohibition of private ownership of guns is the wrong way to go in the United States when there are more than 4.4 million people that support the 2nd amendment

It seems that America has a track-record of rebelling against policies that restrict the "finer things in life" (as people would say.) For example: The prohibition of the 1920's-30's was at first sought out to be a great idea for the United States, due to the concern of over excessive alcohol consumption and the many tickets that were given out for drunken behavior and unlawful sales of liquor. The U.S. ultimately decided to ban alcohol for moral and health reasons with the help of the 18th amendment of the Constitution. America did not seemingly consider the consequences that were later to come. The prohibition era saw the rise of organized crime, illegal smuggling of alcohol from Canada and Mexico, having a very negative effect on the economy. Eventually the ban on alcohol was appealed by the 21st amendment during the Great Depression when the economy was at it's worst.

The point I'm trying to make here is that even though the United States had good intentions for banning "frosty-cola's," the country suffered unnecessary consequences that could've been avoided if the leaders at that time made stronger regulations instead of dismissing the problem all together. If the future leader-to-be Hilary Clinton or any other Democrat that agrees with confiscation of weapons does not take their time to fiddle out the results or future threats, there is a strong possibility that "We the People of the United States" could have a 2nd Prohibition on our hands with even more dire ramifications.

The only way people improve and better themselves is by looking back at their own mistakes and learning from them. I guess in this situation the U.S. is ready to learn how if they don't allow the public to get their hands on something, the public will gladly cross borders to get what they need all over again! And if it takes the fact that they are loosing their tax money to other countries once again for them to realize what they are doing is ridiculous, then I say "have at it!"