January 18, 2013 by David K. Sutton
Absolutist Gun Nonsense – Obama, Assault Weapons, and the Second Amendment
The following absolutist nonsense needs to stop now:
People who say “the government and President Obama are coming to take my guns away.”
No, government is not coming to take your guns away. And wait second, I thought that’s why you have guns in the first place? I thought the purpose of the Second Amendment, according to people like you, is to allow the citizenry to protect itself against a tyrannical government. So if that’s the case, why are you acting like an anxious quivering little bitch? And no, President Obama did not anoint himself King of America, with the goal of disarming you and your fellow gun nuts.
People who say the 1994 assault weapons ban didn’t work and a new ban on assault weapons will also fail.
Bullshit. First of all, we are talking about a complex piece of legislation, in a complex society, addressing a complex problem. People who make this claim like to say that all an assault weapons ban does is punish law-biding citizens, and does nothing about illegal guns. Who said we are just talking about illegal guns? As I recall, the gun used to kill 20 children in Newtown, CT was an assault weapon. Apparently it was legal (or at least similar guns were) under the 1994 ban, but who says it needs to be legal under a new assault weapons ban?
Even if I allow for the possibility that the 1994 ban didn’t work, that doesn’t mean a new ban is doomed to fail. As it turns out, much of what defined an assault weapon in the 1994 ban was cosmetic. A new ban needs to define the level of damage that can be inflicted in a given time. That is the proper way to define an assault weapon, not cosmetic details.
People who say the Second Amendment guarantees their right to own a firearm for self-defense, and then in the same breath, say that’s why we cannot have restrictions on the types of firearms that can be sold.
I wrote about this recently in an article tilted: The Second Amendment Right To “Keep And Bear Arms” Is Not Absolute.
An absolutist interpretation of the Second Amendment would allow unlimited ownership of any type of arms available. But we know this is unreasonable, so we accept laws that restrict the purchase and ownership of certain types of arms, and these restrictions have not been judged unconstitutional. Therefore, it is already well established that the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” is not an absolute right. But what is not well established is where we draw the line.
You can argue why you think a particular firearm should be legal, but you cannot say that it is unconstitutional for government to limit the types of firearms that can be sold.
People who say (I’m talking to you Senator Rand Paul) that something is unconstitutional, when in fact there is no judicial ruling one way or another.
There are a lot of people, particularly Fox News hosts and pundits, who like to make claims on the constitutionality of various initiatives, executive orders and legislation passed during Obama’s first term. What you need to know is this: Nothing is unconstitutional until a court rules that it’s unconstitutional. People like Rand Paul can offer their opinion of what they believe is and isn’t constitutional, but remember, it’s just their opinion.
LEFT CALL POLL