A group of writers has come up with what they consider several ways to reduce so-called “gun violence” that amount to erasing the Second Amendment and turning firearms ownership into a heavily-regulated government privilege.
Their original proposal appeared last month in Inlander, a weekly newspaper based in Spokane, Washington. On Wednesday, an abbreviated version appeared in Nuvo as “25 Ways to Reduce Gun Violence.”
The suggested solutions include, but aren’t limited to:
Require a police interview to get a gun
Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?
What other constitutional right requires police permission before it can be exercised? What journalist fills out a form, submits it to a federal law enforcement agency and waits for an okay before going to press on a story?
What citizen should be required to speak to a police officer before he/she consults with an attorney?
How would this interview requirement square with someone visiting Planned Parenthood?
Allow local governments the power to regulate guns
How about allowing local governments the authority to regulate speech? Would it be acceptable to attend a Catholic church in Sacramento, but prohibited in San Francisco?
Ban “assault-style” weapons
The most popular rifle platform in America today is the AR-type semi-auto, also known as a Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR). In any given year, rifles of any kind are used in about 2-3 percent of all homicides, and the authors acknowledge in their own article, “A federally funded study found the effect on overall violence to be minimal, in part because assault weapons are used in so few incidents (though high-capacity magazines were more common) and in part because the ban’s narrow definition of “assault weapon” hinges on military-style features such as a pistol grip or a folding stock.”
Make gun buyers wait
How about making criminal defendants wait ten days before being allowed to speak to an attorney?
Ban Bump Stocks
The “Bump stock” is an accessory that many gun owners acknowledge is something of a gimmick, and it has been used in one incident, the Las Vegas mass shooting in October. Even the authors acknowledge “the impact would likely be small.”
“While fewer people may have died in Las Vegas if bump stocks were banned,” they admit, “the devices have rarely, if ever, been used in prior shootings.”
Reading either version of this “wish list” of gun control measures provides an informative, albeit alarming, glimpse of the anti-gun mindset.
What all of this suggests is that gun prohibitionists are ready to overlook the fact that owning and carrying guns is a right specifically protected by the federal constitution and 44 state constitutions.
