Who would oppose ‘common-sense gun laws that are designed to prevent tragedies as we saw in Uvalde Texas recently? Who sees a violent slaughter like that and is unmoved to do something to prevent further attacks?  Emotionally and rationally, there is not a single person in this country that wouldn’t do almost anything to prevent another massacre of children.  The real question to ask is simply this: would any action or new law being currently suggested have prevented these shootings?

Doing nothing feels insensitive while imposing new gun regulations restricts our second amendment rights and that is the conundrum that is facing all Americans. At a time like this, it is best to err on the side of doing nothing as most quick actions will likely yield very poor outcomes. Let’s examine some of the less sensical choices:

Red Flag Laws: this has a fair amount of enthusiasm and support behind it, with good reason. It is logical to have a method to report someone who “appears mentally and emotionally unbalanced” to prevent them from obtaining or using a firearm. The problem is that anyone can report anyone else, the criteria have not been established, and, in most iterations of this, there is an immediate law enforcement action to remove all weapons from that person’s home.

Making threats is an action that warrants concern.  But what if the threat is made online? How are we going to monitor all those that may make threatening statements in cyberspace? Are all threats intended to be serious or are they a cry for attention? What if it is made in public?

The problem is, that what appears unbalanced to you may make someone else happy. For example, didn’t we just have a famous actor say in public that it has been a long time since an actor killed a President? A famous singer said before a large crowd that she had thought often of bombing the White House. That was Johnny Depp and Madona talking about Trump, but law enforcement never moved. Both were cheered by the public and neither lost any of their rights, so when is a threat, a threat? Seems like some deep thought needs to go into establishing the criteria of a threat.

The biggest problem with so-called “red flag” laws is that there is typically no due process. If you are “flagged”, you are presumed guilty and must prove your innocence before you can get your firearms returned. Thus, if you have a neighbor who doesn’t like you or an embittered former spouse, they can simply make a phone call to disarm your household.

What is a mental illness is a fluid concept among professionals in the field. Just a few years ago, certain sexual practices were considered an illness, then political pressure was exerted by activists, and these behaviors were normalized. If “mental illness” can be bent that easily by pressure groups, the danger is having certain political and social views determine what is mental illness. It is far better to judge people by their actions, not their opinions. But in an era that has defined deviancy down to just about anything, and ideas are considered to make people “unsafe”, red flag laws are so loose that it begs to be abused.

Limit Magazine Capacity: This seems sensible enough in the abstract. After all, does any sporting hunter or marksman need a “high capacity” magazine? Don’t only soldiers need a weapon like these? In order to unpack this, let’s review the purpose of the Second Amendment: it was to empower the citizens of the nation to repulse any attempts to restrict our freedoms. If you take a few minutes and look at why this was included in our constitution, you merely have reviewed the writings of our country’s architects, such as Patrick Henry, who delivered the following:

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

This is but one of many examples of our founders directing our citizens to keep and bear arms, not to prevent an invasion but to be able to throw off any attempts at a monarchy or totalitarian government. In this vein, we, as active citizens, should be permitted any and all weapons that our soldiers are equipped with. The President’s statement that “you weren’t allowed to own a cannon” is patently false.

In addition, the argument is made that “low-capacity magazines” will slow down a killer, allowing counterattack during the reloading process. There are two obvious problems. One can learn to reload a magazine in less than two seconds. And more to the point, if it takes an hour to respond as it did in Uvalde, it would have done nothing to slow down the killer even if he was running a reloading press, making his own ammunition.

 Expanded Background Checks: This might actually be a useful way to prevent felons and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms but if, and only if, we as a society are willing to provide for the mentally ill. The predominance of mental illness in the homeless that have flocked to San Francisco and Los Angeles is at an almost epidemic level and is responsible for the lion’s share of crime in those communities.

Moreover, many infractions do not make it to the national database because it is poorly run and administered. Remember when the Air Force failed to get relevant information about a shooter onto the national database? Serious infractions may not get on the database because these infractions were committed by minors. We all should agree that felons should not be allowed to own weapons, but the Left is busy trying to dismantle the police, hobble the prosecutors, and shut down the prisons. If they succeed, how does data from non-prosecuted crimes, and non-incarcerated non-felons, get onto a national database? Any database is only as good as the data.

Before we jump to restrict gun ownership any further, let’s consider how well some of those restrictions work. Let’s examine some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and their impact on gun violence. The most flagrant example of this is the city of Chicago, home to some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, which has seen 229 gun murders year to date, as of June 5^th, 2022, and another 760 shot to death in 2021.  At last check, making guns illegal in Chicago has only guaranteed that only the criminals in that city are armed.

Finally, let’s remember that no totalitarian leader has ever permitted their populace to remain armed.  Let’s review the dictators in recent history: Mao disarmed the Chinese people, and Lenin and Stalin disarmed the Russian people.  Hitler confiscated guns as did Cambodia.   Turkey disarmed the Armenians, and so on. Moreover, we should also expect our leaders to live under the same rules that they wish to impose on us. Are they willing to disarm their bodyguards, take down the walls around their homes, or dispose of the billions of bullets in the DHS?

The political left has generally promoted defunding law enforcement, elected the most liberal district attorneys, argues for the shortest sentences for felonies, and currently oversees the worst crime rates in the nation. Now we are to trust that they will offer ‘common-sense gun measures’ for our own good (“to protect our children”). 

Perhaps the most galling fact of these pontifications and pronouncements is that they are issued by the same people who advocate for abortion rights for the entire pregnancy and through delivery. If they were intellectually honest, they would simply categorize school shootings as late-term abortions.

Let’s be blunt.  The political left wants to take our guns away, yet they are doing their best to disarm the police, hobble the prosecutors, close down the prisons, open our border to all people unvetted, turn law enforcement against parents concerned about schooling, and destroy the family and traditional morality. With a record like that, would you trust them to protect you from crimes, and protect your rights from government abuse?

Our rights are always eroded with any regulation of our Second Amendment. The sanctity and health of the First Amendment can only exist with a healthy Second Amendment.

The abuse of a right by a tiny minority of mentally unstable people does argue to deny the vast majority the full exercise of their rights.  It is not common sense to argue that it does.