A response to "On Guns-An Ode in Prose"

In response to James River Maven:
also cross posted to his comments

Supporters of the 2nd Amendment have seen a resurgence in the support of "gun rights." We have also seen renewed efforts to restrict those rights. Proposed laws, such as this one (ban "gun show loophole") are always touted as "saving lives" or "promoting safety." The government states that no private sales, outside of a gun show, would be affected. Then why have it? Private sales of weapons would happen elsewhere. And if a law is proposed that mandates background checks on all sales of guns, how is it to be enforced? Must one provide paperwork on demand, showing where one got the weapon? How about gifts? And would a gun dealer want to take on the liability of running background checks for 3rd party transactions? Of course, there would be a fee involved. And regulations initiated by the BATFE. Gun dealers are being shut down by the hundreds because of inadvertent paperwork errors.

Does not the right of self defense predate the 2nd Amendment and the invention of gunpowder? The right to bear arms includes all arms. One is armed when a weapon is carried. Yes, gang members kill each other. Yes, firearms were invented to kill their target, whether animal or human. Gang members that kill each other are criminals. They are abusing their rights. The right to bear arms is one of our most serious responsibilities. We have a duty to to be law-abiding citizens that take our responsibilities seriously. Because there is an argument that guns were designed to kill people, we should restrict them. We have a 2nd Amendment BECAUSE weapons are designed to kill. The 2nd Amendment is the final defense of the other rights. Just because some citizens abuse that right, or do not believe that it is appropriate, does not abrogate that right and responsibility.

You talk of disobedience to the law. Defense of our civil rights is NOT disobedience. If the government wished to disarm you, they must force you to give up your 2nd Amendment rights. Some supporters of the 1st Amendment have died, albeit in other countries, in defense of THAT right. The right to bear arms is SUPPOSED to be a check on an overreaching government. Civil rights supporters react this way because the government and other citizens ARE attempting to take away our rights. And they don't do it (well, most don't) by calling for a total ban on weapons. Its done incrementally. For safety reasons, for our own good. And none of it works. See Washington DC, New York, and Chicago. For that matter, see England.
Criminals do not pay attention to gun laws. Every gun law is considered a "first step" towards more gun laws. Supporters of this one have said as much.

Your analogy of driver laws and car regulations does not apply, as you do not have a right to a car. You do a right to freedom of movement, which, in that case, one could present a right to a car. However, no one is trying to restrict your right to a car because someone misused their car or because of the thousands killed on our roadways.

If a state regulates something, it can take away that thing. Local, state, and federal governments constantly want to regulates, well, everything. The government is not there to allow you your rights. They do not come from the government. The government is supposed to be there to enforce and protect your rights. The Bill of Rights does not give you the rights listed. It recognises them under the rule of law so that the government has to protect them.

We gun owners have accepted great restrictions on our rights. The gun industry is the most regulated industry in America. Many areas completely ban the ownership of weapons. We are trying to educate the citizenry on the fact that gun laws do not work. Background checks work only on the law-abiding or the rare stupid criminal that goes through proper channels to get a firearm. Cho went through the checks. Instead of needing a check, Cho should have been involuntarily institutionalized. It is THAT failure that needs to be fixed. There are citizens that have come forward that want to carry on campus. That is the only way to add security. The state and police cannot protect you without draconian measures. Police can only catch a predator because the predator has to first commit the crime.

Yes, it might seem to others that 2nd Amendment activists "overreact." But we have seen this before. Little steps to "protect" us. We've heard it before that "oh, this law won't apply to you." But then, a precedent has been made, so new laws are made. Laws that do nothing but make the politician look good and feel good. Laws like the "assault weapons" ban. Laws like registration. Laws like local governments and courts arbitrarily deciding who should be allowed to carry a weapon. Or waiting periods that force battered wives to wait for needed protection, as an example. We have drawn a line. Make laws that protect all rights. Stop using weasel worded language like "gun show loophole." That makes us suspicious. We know that there is no gun show loophole. There are private citizens selling their guns. If you wish to restrict that, say so. If THAT won't get passed, then that is the will of the legislature. If that does get passed, that too is the will of the legislature. And we will continue to support our rights.