Whenever I upload a blog post with some sort of reference to gun control, even the tiniest bit, I catch some less than gentile digital flak. Today has been no exception following my post last night about assault rifles and body armor. In the post, I questioned the need for any individual to own an assault rifle or body armor other than for less-than-wholesome purposes. Even though I posted it under liberal on reddit, and included a clearly stated allowance for legally owned hunting rifles, gun collections, and handguns for personal protection, I still received several biting rebukes.
What is the gun lobby so damn scared of? The assault weapons ban of the 1990s certainly didn’t leave out nation defenseless and overrun by the rampant armies of Satan. Sadly, I am beginning to believe that nothing short of the total gutting all gun laws will be enough for the most ardent of the gun lobby. Despite what’s depicted in Westerns, our nation was not founded on the quickest draw or largest arsenal, but on a set of laws and guiding principles. The second amendment clearly says, “a well-regulated militia,” not a “lawless militia” or “an anarchial militia.”
One respondent said something to the effect of gun ownership is a right, not a need. Based on the second amendment, that is essentially true, except when gun ownership starts infringing on my rights as a citizen to free speech, as well as enjoying my life and liberties without having to worry about who may or may not be packing. I think we have reached the stage where gun owners have taken away the rights of other citizens because they have become too powerful, too radical, and much too visible.
In a debate between those packing and those not, don’t tell me those guns are not intimidating. That fact in itself has eroded the rights of non-gun owners who are afraid to speak up. What gun advocates seem to forget is that every right has its limits. Once you exceed those reasonable limits, as I believe the gun lobby has, you start trampling on the rights of others.