Writer Thinks Our Rights Aren't Good Reasons To Oppose Gun Laws

Do you want to know what’s really fun? It’s an absolute blast when someone tells you what you should and shouldn’t do when those things basically allow them to get their way. Besides self-serving, it’s stupid. It’s transparent, but not in a good way. Anyone with half a brain can see through the male bovine excrement and see what that person is trying to do.


Which, of course, didn’t stop a writer from saying we shouldn’t argue against gun control.

It’s just a fact of life that handguns are now permanent legal fixtures in the American landscape. We have to live with that.

But the freedom to own a firearm doesn’t mean it has to be free of charge. It doesn’t mean that owners can’t be a tiny bit inconvenienced. And someone’s right to own a gun certainly does not trump the safety rights of the rest of us.

This is what the pro-gun people don’t seem to understand.

They’re right. It doesn’t have to be free of charge. That’s why we buy our guns.

But beyond that, they’re wrong. In every way, they’re wrong. That’s because a right delayed is a right denied, so being “inconvenienced” means our rights are infringed upon.

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state, the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It’s, like, right there in the text. We didn’t just make that crap up, after all.

But the writer continues.

Gun rights advocates in Illinois are in an uproar over legislation that is being debated in the General Assembly. The bill simply would make it harder for people who aren’t supposed to have guns to legally obtain them.

The amendment to House Bill 96, sponsored by Rep. Kathleen Willis, is one of several bills introduced in the aftermath of a multiple shooting at a manufacturing warehouse in Aurora in February.

Of course, we don’t know if stricter state laws could have stopped 45-year-old [killer’s name redacted] from shooting five co-workers to death, in addition to injuring five police officers, after learning he was to be terminated. But many Illinois residents are demanding that our lawmakers at least give it a try.


Now, bear in mind that Illinois requires two background checks prior to buying a gun. Two. The killer, using his real name and information, was still able to obtain a handgun from a licensed dealer despite a felony conviction in Mississippi.

However, the writer believes gun rights advocates don’t have a persuasive argument. Why? Because she doesn’t think they’re persuasive.

So, just what does this bill do that will be such a game changer yet have so little impact on gun buyers?

Gun lovers don’t seem to have a substantive argument against Willis’ legislation, but the Illinois State Rifle Association laid out some of the issues last week on its website. For those who don’t know, the ISRA is our local version of the National Rifle Association.

The ISRA is livid that everyone who applies for a new FOID card or renews one would have to be fingerprinted. The cost of this would be “astronomical, up to $250.” In addition, the ISRA says, applicants would have to pay for their own background check, costing another $100 or more.

But who says that the people who choose to own firearms shouldn’t have to go into their pocketbooks every now and then? Gun owners have no problem shelling out $600 for the latest Smith & Wesson. But if you ask them to pay $10 — the current cost of a FOID card — they go ballistic. They are perfectly satisfied allowing taxpayers who would never own a gun to supplement the administrative costs for their freedom.


With FOID cards, it’s not the cost but the principle, that someone is being required to get permission to exercise a constitutional right. How would she feel if we required she get a special ID card to exercise her free speech rights?

The new bill is calling for more than a mere $10, though. It’s calling for up to $250.

“Oh, but that’s still only a fraction of the cost of that Smith & Wesson,” she might counter, and she’d be right.

But guns aren’t just for the wealthy. It’s not just for those willing to shell out $600 or more for a firearm. The Second Amendment protects the rights of all citizen to keep and bear arms. That includes the people who can barely scrape together $150 for a cheap firearm the gun community tends to snicker about. These fees will more than double the cost for low-income people, who tend to live in bad neighborhoods and are actually more likely to need a firearm, to protect themselves.

Oh, Miss Chicago Tribune Columnist can be all high and mighty, but she’s not in those neighborhoods. She doesn’t see the problem with requiring a $250 fee just to get permission to exercise a consitutional right.

OK, fine. Let’s go with that, then.

I’m going to propose a new ID card for those in Illinois engaging in various forms of journalism. Those individuals will be required to submit to a background check and pay $250 in order to get a license. This license will be required prior to starting any blog, applying to any newspaper or television station, or pitching story ideas as a freelance writer.


After all, freedom of the press “doesn’t mean it has to be free of charge,” does it? It doesn’t mean journalists “can’t be a tiny bit inconvenienced,” right?

Let’s see how that plays.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member