Let’s accept reality here. Gun-control-supporting politicians don’t care about the details from Newtown, they just want to get rid of as many guns as possible since they hate guns and hate gun owners. They do this because that is how they are programmed … they must do something, even when the something they do does not solve the problem. Of course, they can feel good about themselves since they “tried” and that’s what counts in their mind.
Of course, solving the problem is hard and liberals and gun-control activists don’t like to do hard things, so instead, they take the easy route by demonizing gun owners and the firearms they own. At the same time, they claim to support the 2nd Amendment with “reasonable” limitations. Earlier today, Jim mentioned he too wants the kids to be “safe.” I put that word safe in quotes for a specific reason. Safe is an absolute term, and by claiming you want the kids to be safe, you are saying two things…
- Our kids are not very safe now. This is absolutely not the case at all. In almost every measurable way, the children in our society are extremely safe.
- You somehow think you can make our children 100 percent safe – the absolute – which is not possible.
Of course there are outliers, but in general, the kids in our part of the world live in a very safe society. Can things be safer? Maybe, but there is the law of diminishing returns involved here. As an example, kids are extremely safe in a school bus – much safer than their family car – yet liberals freak out after a school bus accident that kills one child and demand something is done. It’s devastating to lose a child … I can’t imagine … but about six children die per year in school bus accidents, and accidents happen. Yet still – most liberal/statist politicians feel they must do something to solve this outlier problem.
Back to my point.
Even if a detailed report from the State Police indicated the shooter only used 10 rounds of each 30 round magazine – quickly reloading the gun to ensure he had a “full mag” – the gun-control activists would not drop their demand for a high capacity magazine ban, quite the contrary. Eventually they would just demand the 10 round magazines are banned too.
I was having a discussion with a local law enforcement supervisor who is totally against any additional restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights. During the conversation, I brought up the VT shooting where that murderer killed 32 people using a handgun with standard capacity magazines. He told me – and I’m paraphrasing – it didn’t matter and my example was not helpful since the gun-control activists would just use my example to demand restrictions on handguns with standard capacity magazines.
He had an excellent point. Our argument is for freedom. Freedom to choose what gun or guns we want to use to target shoot, compete, hunt or defend ourselves with. It has nothing to do with need. It’s about pushing back limitations to our freedom. It’s about government tyranny. Yes, it’s about the 2nd Amendment and the people’s right to bare arms.
Section 15 of Connecticut’s Constitution specifically reads … Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. The 2nd Amendment reads … A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Don’t bother asking me the nuclear weapon/rocket launcher/F-16/grenades or even machine gun argument. None of those weapons are in use – common use – throughout the United States and therefore it is a red-herring. Handguns, shotguns and semi-automatic rifles are all in common use by law-abiding citizens throughout the United States. That includes semi-automatic sport rifles with 30 round magazines; there are millions of semi-automatic rifles out there and tens of millions of magazines. That’s common use folks, and firearms in common use by the people are protected by the 2nd Amendment, and confirmed through the Miller and Heller Supreme Court cases as noted before.
We should not have to bring this to the courts, but keep in mind politicians just want to do something so they can claim some sort of “victory” even if the courts abolish the law. If the courts toss out legislation, they have a scapegoat. Is that really how politicians should lead or govern? If you’re a liberal/statist … it’s right out of the playbook, and it’s working.