One problem we have in this country is how dense-populated urban areas can completely sway the politics of a given state. Look at Illinois, California, or New York. All have areas that deeply respect gun rights, yet gun laws proliferate in these states despite them.
It’s part of why the Founding Fathers were wise to enshrine the right to keep and bear arms within the Second Amendment.
A poll of folks in Boston makes it very clear just why we cannot let urban areas decide for the rest of us.
As the Senate works on its gun safety bill, we asked readers if they thought the proposed measures went far enough to curb gun violence in the country. The bill could offer federal money to states with “red flag” laws, make the juvenile records of gun-buyers under age 21 available for background checks, and require more people who sell guns to obtain federal dealers’ licenses.
Most of the 108 readers who responded to our survey said the proposed gun control agreement doesn’t far enough.
“The right to have guns doesn’t and shouldn’t mean the right to have every kind of gun imaginable,” Sarah from MetroWest said. “Military weaponry should not be legal for regular citizens to own. Keep your hunting rifles and self-protection handguns and implement MUCH STRICTER background checks and screenings for gun ownership.”
“No semi-automatic weapons. No guns for kids under 21. People should not only have their background checked but should also be required to pass a test to get a license to use one. We require that for automobiles, which is also a deadly weapon. Why not for guns?” — Trudy M., Melrose
No semi-automatic weapons?
What do you want to bet this woman doesn’t have a clue what actually constitutes a semi-automatic weapon? I wonder if she realizes that semi-autos have been around for more than a century and are the most common form of handgun throughout the nation, or that the action is also popular for sporting shotguns and hunting rifles.
Not that it should matter, of course.
It’s clear that Bostonians prefer their strict gun laws, but it’s also clear that most don’t actually understand guns, gun rights, or much of anything else about firearms. Banning semi-automatics, for example, would also ban most standard-issue police sidearms.
The problem isn’t just Boston, though. It’s urban areas in general.
Most who live there have no understanding of firearms. They don’t understand much of anything about them except for the crime that plagues their streets. When they’re told the problem is guns, they don’t have any information that runs contrary to that, so they accept it and internalize that position.
As a result, they push for gun laws.
Yet folks outside of the city tend to understand these things a bit better. They often rely on guns to keep them safe because they know law enforcement could be miles and miles away when they’re needed. They learn about guns and come to understand them. Even non-gun people know how common semi-automatics actually are.
This is why urban areas need to be kept in check when deciding how we can exercise our basic and protected rights. They would have gun laws that essentially strip the Second Amendment of any meaning, then have the courts uphold those laws through whatever convoluted reasoning they can manufacture–thus ignoring Thursday’s Bruen decision.
This is why we have an electoral college. It’s a means of minimizing the infringement of urban areas onto more rural parts of the country on things like gun laws.
It’s also why I’m glad they don’t get to saddle the rest of us with the gun laws they think so highly of.