Writer Basically Admits To What We Already Knew On 'Sensible Gun Control'

For some time, gun grabbers have argued that no, they don’t really want all of our guns. They just want “common sense gun control,” as they put it. They realized some time ago that trying to take away the Second Amendment wasn’t going to work, so they shifted gears and are now trying to present their demands as reasonable.

However, a writer at Refinery 29 has just expressed why none of us take their claims of moderation seriously. In a post titled, “Touting ‘Sensible Gun Control’ Hasn’t Worked. So Let’s Switch to ‘Yes, I’m Anti-Guns,’” writer Lily Herman argues:

When the Las Vegas shooting happened in October, I wrote about how much I loathe and despise the National Rifle Association with every fiber of my being. I wrote about how Republicans don’t give a rat’s ass about your life or my life or any of our lives. I wrote about how the issue isn’t just with the guns themselves but our country’s obsession with violence—particularly gun violence—as a national identity. I wrote about how the vast majority (I’m talking eight out of 10 Americans) agree that certain effective gun control policies should be enacted, but our lawmakers won’t do jack shit—and instead extend gun rights.

And as I sit here now to write something about the horrific shooting that took place at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL on Valentine’s Day, I realize that anything I’d pen would sound almost identical to what I’ve published before.
I’m tired of writing those things. And I’m sure you’re tired of reading them. So let’s cut the crap, because the old system isn’t working here. It’s time for a new approach. And it’s not just saying we’re for more gun control legislation; it’s about saying we’re aiming for a culture that’s blatantly anti-guns.

Good luck with that one, Sparky.

Of course, we already knew all this; we already knew that they were aiming for an anti-gun culture. That’s why we refuse to play ball simply because the rhetoric softened up a bit.

Then again, changing that rhetoric won’t exactly do any good either. In fact, it’ll help the left lose ground on the gun debate. Why? Because most people still ultimately believe in the right to keep and bear arms. Maybe they don’t really understand the “shall not be infringed” part, but they believe it’s a right. Even the Supreme Court has upheld that.

If Herman persists in making this argument–and I truly hope she does–all she will do is push the more casual supporters of “sensible gun control” away from her and her ilk and toward us. After all, it’s easy to think more background checks will be a good thing without wanting to see guns banned.

Yet Herman has essentially said she prefers the latter proposal over the former. She wants to end the private ownership of firearms, much like many of her anti-Second Amendment fellow travelers.

What she has to understand is that nothing about this is shocking to us. Nothing at all. We already knew people like her want an anti-gun culture. We already knew people like her don’t support the right for a person to have the means to defend themselves. We already knew that she and those like her would, at best, pay lip service to the Second Amendment while still trying to limit that right like she does right here:

What does that entail? Well, I for one am no longer beating around the bush with all of this word salad to make gun owners feel at ease; the right to bear arms is in our Constitution, sure, but the fact is you’re still in possession of an object that could kill me, my family, my friends, and members of my community. As Michael Waldman pointed out, just because you have the right to something doesn’t mean it comes with no strings attached; even constitutional rights have limits.

What real limits are there on other constitutional rights?

No, seriously, do tell.

Sure, there are libel/slander laws, but those are about causing harm to someone. I’m not allowed to fire into a crowd just because it amuses me either.

What few “limits” there are placed on our rights usually have more to do with causing harm to others through our actions than anything else. We don’t ban certain words, for example. We don’t ban certain religions. It’s illegal to block certain groups from protesting.

There are remarkably few limits on our other constitutionally protected rights.

Yet let’s look at the laws surrounding guns for just a moment. We have to pass a background check to purchase a gun at a gun store (or anywhere in some states). There are laws against owning certain kinds of firearms without express permission, and laws that have made obtaining these firearms so expensive as to be impractical for most people. There are laws in many places regarding the storage of them. There are laws regarding the carry of firearms. Permits are required simply to walk outside of your home with a firearm in many places, for crying out loud.

No other constitutional right is nearly as limited as those of the Second Amendment.

Either Herman recognizes that or she doesn’t. If she recognizes that, her omission is a lie designed to elicit sympathy for her cause. If she doesn’t, then she’s woefully uneducated on the subject she wishes to pontificate upon and should probably keep her mouth shut lest the whole world see how big of an idiot she is.

Actually, that last bit is good advice either way.