Gun rights include right to own any firearm
To my dismay, during the second presidential debate President Obama suggested restricting the rights of American’s by reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban. In 1994, Congress passed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that outlawed the production on 18 models of firearms, based solely on their cosmetic appearance. This ban did not care about the function of a firearm, but sought only to remove firearms with “military” appearance. Firearms, such as semi-automatic AK-47 rifles, were banned. Yet the same rifle with a civilian style stock and a non-military appearance was perfectly legal. The change in appearance did not have any impact on the function or capability of the weapon, but merely served to calm the fears of those scared by military-type firearms.
Since the ban expired in 2004, many may not remember it’s impacts. But I recall being banned for a decade from long range rifle competitions because I owned a banned rifle. Imagine how upsetting it was when someone told me that I could no longer use a several-thousand-dollar, custom-built rifle in competition because of its appearance.
I don’t know about you, but my guess is that not many criminals invest in an expensive, match-grade rifle before going on crime sprees. This ban on the appearance of weapons is nothing short of prejudice on the level of racism. When someone talks about the assault weapon ban, I think of Nazis holding color charts to the eyes of children to short them into categories.
The term “assault weapon” is actually undefinable. Assault weapons are not the same as fully automatic weapons. U.S. Citizens can own fully automatic weapons in accordance with the National Firearms Act of 1934 simply by filling out the appropriate forms and paying the $200 tax. Therefore, this is not about full-auto weapons. So how is this term defined? This term is too ambiguous, open to whatever people want it to mean. The primary use often goes back to defining “scary looking” firearms. Ironically, the appearance of firearms often has nothing to do with their performance. How does changing the shape of a stock make a firearm less dangerous, when it still fires the same cartridge, to the same range, with the same accuracy?
The 2nd Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Clearly, this amendment was not written about your hunting firearms, but military grade weapons. Some might suggest that this amendment only allows for the firearms rights of the National Guard and Reserve to maintain arms, but a deeper analysis of the spirit of this law implies that the right is provided to every citizen. Not only should Americans have access to military-type rifles to augment the military in times of need, they also need these types of weapons to overthrow a government that becomes unjust. The Assault Weapons Ban and all other firearm bans interfere with this American right.
If history has taught us anything about firearm control, it is that restricting firearms leads to the loss of both liberty and safety. It is a myth to think that banning firearms will remove illegal weapons. Firearms bans have been implemented with evil intentions by countries like Nazi Germany to ensure that the populace was easier to control. Even with good intents, countries like Britain have suffered huge spikes in armed crimes rates by removing firearms from lawful gun owners. In fact, firearms reduce crime, as seen in the decrease in violent crimes in American states that have authorized concealed handgun carry. Therefore, it should be noted that there is a difference between “feeling” safer with a firearms ban in place, and being safer with a firearm in hand.
I find it troubling that any politician suggests that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution be reduced or eliminated. Would we be sympathetic for a law that would limit our freedom of speech? Would we even entertain Pakistan’s request to the U.N. to make blasphemy punishable under international law? No. We have pride in our liberties and should be willing to accept the risk required to maintain our liberties.
I am not willing to trade my freedoms for a false sense of security.