Banning the purchase, sale or transfer of “assault rifles” will do nothing to reduce crime. It will do nothing to stop spree killers. It will do nothing to prevent suicides or limit the lethality of suicide attempts. Banning “assault rifles” will do nothing whatsoever to benefit society. While we’re at it, banning the purchase, sale or transfer of “high capacity” ammunition magazines will do nothing to reduce crime. It will do nothing to stop spree killers. It will do nothing to prevent suicides or limit the lethality of suicide attempts. Banning “high capacity” ammunition magazines will do nothing whatsoever to benefit society. One more . . .
Mandating FBI criminal background checks on all gun purchases and transfers will do nothing to reduce crime. It will do nothing to stop spree killers. It will do nothing to prevent suicides or limit the lethality of suicide attempts. Mandatory FBI criminal background checks on all gun purchases will do nothing whatsoever to benefit society.
Gun right advocates point out that these three post-Newtown gun control measures all have potential downsides.
Banning the purchase, sale or transfer of “assault rifles” makes it harder for Americans to defend themselves against violence. It makes it harder to defend against attacks from government agents, which have historical precedent.
Banning the purchase, sale or transfer of “high capacity” ammunition magazines makes it harder for Americans to defend themselves against violence. It makes it harder to defend against attacks from government agents, which have historical precedent.
Mandating FBI criminal background checks on all firearms sales and transfers makes it possible for the government to keep track of all gun purchases throughout the United States. It makes it easier for the government to confiscate privately (and legally) held firearms.
In short, none of these three gun control measures offer sufficient benefits to outweigh the risks.
More than that, these three gun control measures expand government intervention in the purchase, sale and transfer of civilian firearms. By doing so, they violate the United States Constitution’s prohibition against laws that infringe upon Americans’ [natural or human] right to keep and bear arms.
The people who favor these three gun control measures claim that these infringements constitute “reasonable restrictions” on the Second Amendment.
As stated above, these three measures are not reasonable in the sense that there’s a proven, pragmatic reason to implement them.
Despite misleading misinformation disseminated by proponents of civilian disarmament, there can be no reasonable expectation that banning “assault weapons” and “high capacity” ammunition magazines and mandating FBI background checks for all firearms sales and transfers will create any meaningful reduction of crime or suicide rates.
Nor are these measures reasonable in the sense of inexpensive. Implementing any or all of these measures will impose a tremendous financial burden on taxpayers (through enforcement) and exact a terrible cost in terms of personal safety. They will open the door to further infringement, leading us down the road to complete disarmament.
The American national anthem is the only national anthem that ends with a question: “Does that star-spangled banner yet wave o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?” It reminds us that we must constantly question the laws which govern us, and our relationship to our government.
Gun control laws erode our freedom. We must bravely face down those who would sacrifice our liberty for the illusion of safety. However reasonable on their face, none of these three measure must stand.