It seems that every time another deranged so and so enters a “gun free zone” and massacres one or more people, irrational subjects begin to wail once again demanding more gun control. I am told that gun control is now considered a bad word and the catch term today is gun restrictions. Because, don’t you know, some idiot decided to coin a ridiculous phrase that says, “all rights come with restrictions”.
I answered someone just the other day when they demanded smaller gun magazines, that the continued creation of gun free zones and gun control measures was doing what in limiting gun violence? Even a close, lifelong friend suggested to me that perhaps it was time to limit magazine capacity. Former V.P. Dick Cheney suggested it and hoards of gun haters, and not so much gun haters, are “compromising” to say it’s reasonable to restrict gun rights in this fashion because………well, why is it?
The strongest argument I have heard, which is weak at best, is that if we limit magazine capacity fewer people will get killed when a deranged bastard decides to annihilate masses of people. There actually may be some substance to such an argument but let’s consider the truth, if only for a moment.
The first question to ask is how many lawful citizens that you know of kill people randomly? The Tuscon massacre was a planned out event. Do you honestly believe that Loughner would NOT have been able to get his hands on a 30-round magazine if they were deemed illegal to own?
But, I’ve been down this road a thousand times before and you can discuss the ins and outs of what restricting magazines would accomplish, if anything. However, in everything that is discussed about guns and gun restrictions, remember that owning and possessing arms is a constitutional right.
Now, back to the idiot who coined the phrase, “all rights come with restrictions”. Why do all rights come with restrictions? Most hide behind the argument that it’s for public safety or for the public good. The most overused example is that of free speech – you can’t yell “fire” in a movie theater, when there is no fire.
So let me ask you this question. Is making it unlawful to yell “fire” in a movie theater, defined as a restriction on free speech, provide for a safer experience watching a movie? Jazz Shaw, in a post at Hot Air, asks, “Shall we cut out all of our tongues to ensure they are not used maliciously?” One might think doing such would eliminate movie theater chaos. People with a deeper understanding would know that a person bent on creating the chaos would find another way to do it.
Would restricting gun owners to smaller magazines, result in fewer people killed? In reality, we have no way of knowing that. In this instance of gun rights limitations, the result of implementing such a restriction is minimal as far as public safety may be concerned but detrimental as far as the incremental chiseling away at Second Amendment rights. If not a 30-round magazine, then what? 20 rounds? 10 rounds? No rounds? Where is the line drawn? A line that was forced to be drawn because people actually thought limiting magazine capacity would limit crime.
An argument to limit magazine size is inane. To help explain that, let’s make some comparisons that most people would laugh at. First, let’s list out a bunch of things, in addition to guns, that are used, whether intentional or not, to kill people: cars, knives, baseball bats, drugs, golf clubs, chemicals, beer bottles, rope, razor blades, electricity, and you can add to this list all you would like.
Like the idea of limiting magazine size, we should then consider limiting certain things with these items readily used to kill people. With automobiles, we have done many things in an attempt to protect passengers in a car. We all know the saying – speed kills. Shouldn’t we then, using the same rationale as the magazine limitation, restrict motor sizes in vehicles? Or perhaps equip them all with a governor that presets a maximum speed? Limit the number of passengers? Create a 30-day waiting period before you can buy a car and by all means let’s limit ownership to just one?
Knives should then be either made with shorter or duller blades, made of material that can’t be sharpened or made jagged. Baseball bats should have limits on length and size, no more than 2 to a home or Little League team; drugs containing smaller doses; chemicals in smaller containers, beer bottles all made from non shattering plastic; razor blades can only be purchased one to a pack, and electricity in reduced amperes that would limit the killing power to say, just five people. Isn’t this all just silly? What are we doing about the sick individuals who want to hurt people?
The absurdity can never end. We’ve looked at Second Amendment and one right in the First Amendment, speech. Think of the others guaranteed in the First, i.e. religion, press, assembling, petitioning. Granted there are always cries under certain situations to place restrictions on all of these rights. Most are quickly rejected, so far, by the majority. But, do we treat these guarantees in the same fashion as the right to keep and bear arms?
For those who believe a reasonable compromise on gun restrictions would be to limit magazine capacity, let me leave you with this comment I found on the above Hot Air column I linked to:
Let’s say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with “GUN RIGHTS” written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, “Give me that cake.”
I say, “No, it’s my cake.”
You say, “Let’s compromise. Give me half.” I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.
Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.
There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, “Give me that cake.”
I say, “No, it’s my cake.”
You say, “Let’s compromise.” What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what’s left of the cake I already own.
So, we have your compromise — let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 — and I’m left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.
And I’m sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.
This time you take several bites — we’ll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders — and I’m left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you’ve got nine-tenths of it.
Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)
I’m left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you’re standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being “reasonable”, and wondering “why we won’t compromise”.
I’m done with being reasonable, and I’m done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been “reasonable” nor a genuine “compromise”.
LawDog
Tom Remington
