"No one wants to take away your guns."

How many times has someone told you that in a discussion of gun control? Hell, it happened to me just last week. We know where gun control leads, but the truth of the matter is that most gun control advocates will swear until they're blue in the face that not only do they not want to ban guns but neither does anyone else.

Even if there are facts that are inconvenient, such as prominent anti-gun voices literally saying, "No more guns."

But that's just one person. Surely that doesn't count, right?

Except, it's not just one person.

Get rid of the guns.

Change the U.S. Constitution, which we as a nation have managed 27 times already in this evolving democracy. Restore the Second Amendment to its original meaning — ensuring a well-related militia — and get rid of the guns.

Take deadly arsenals out of private hands, no matter the firearm. No assault weapons. No handguns. No rifles. Melt them down and throw them somewhere deep in the ocean.

Protect ourselves and our futures.

People will break the law, you say. That may be. But we continue to make crack cocaine and recreational fentanyl illegal. Republicans claim they want to bomb Mexico over opioid trafficking.

So pursue guns owned by individuals across this bloodstained nation with the same single-minded determination. Get rid of them, here and now, from everyone who would embark upon shooting sprees and those who fancy themselves responsible gun owners alike.

So what we have is this columnist arguing that we should repeal the Second Amendment then pass a complete and total gun ban.

That's more than exists literally anywhere in the world. Even in the most restrictive nations on the planet, there is still some pathway to lawful firearm ownership, but the author of this piece doesn't want even that.

The author, Clay Wirestone, responds to the whole argument of criminals continuing to break the law by pointing out we still have laws against illicit drugs. This isn't an uncommon point of the discussion, so let's talk about it.

Yes, we still have drug laws. They don't stop criminals from dealing drugs in any way.

But drugs aren't something people use to protect their own life. Things like fentanyl cause massive harm to those who use them. There's no defensive purpose for the drug. Even then, there's a pathway for people to obtain it or something similar if it's really needed.

Guns, on the other hand, are used to protect life far more often than they're use to take it. Even the most pessimistic estimates show them used more than all gun deaths combined, including suicides.

So contrary to the claim, the nation wouldn't be made safer with a total gun ban. All that would happen is that the bad guys would have guns and no one else would, and that's if it worked perfectly. 

It wouldn't.

Yet I will thank Wirestone for one thing. It's always nice when they let the mask slip and stop pretending they actually don't want to repeal the Second Amendment and take all of our guns. It's nice for them to be honest and admit they want to leave us defenseless before the hordes.

My question for Wirestone is why he's so willing to trust the government to protect him. He's lashing out at the gun laws of this nation because of Kansas City, so why not admit that he's putting all of his trust in the cops that were at the scene and couldn't respond fast enough, in the police officers that waited outside at Uvalde as the horrors unfolded within, in the school resource officer in Parkland who stayed outside while a massacre was being committed.

And that's just crime. I haven't touched on a government going down the road of tyranny. I mean, I assume that Wirestone isn't a Trump fan, for example, and figures all kinds of awful things will happen if he's elected. Why is he so willing to trust the government in such a case? I ask because, well, that's what he's doing.

The truth of the matter, though, is that if Wirestone thinks that's the answer, then by all means, get to work. I mean, gun control doesn't pass because there's not enough legislative support for it, but I'm sure a constitutional amendment repealing the Second Amendment would be a much easier sell, so he should get cracking on it right now.

Or he can sit there writing for an organization that's been described as "bought by people with a political agenda" and do nothing, all while pretending he's the arbiter of morality on the topic of guns.

Either way, he's shed the mask. He can join my friend David's list of people who have done so already.