How do I figure? Well, the fact that so many of them are convinced you can restrict the right to keep and bear arms and not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

That's at least the argument so many of them make.

A prime example is Phillip Carter. He's a candidate for the Florida Senate who has opined on the subject in an op-ed titled, "Opinion: Common-sense gun laws: Protecting rights while saving lives."

Yeah, we've heard that before.

The text isn't any better.

The debate over gun control in America has long been polarized, with arguments rooted in constitutional rights clashing with the urgent need to address gun violence. However, it is possible to find common ground through the adoption of common-sense gun legislation — policies that respect the Second Amendment while making our communities safer.

These reforms are not about taking away guns but about ensuring that dangerous individuals do not have easy access to firearms. One of the most widely supported measures is universal background checks. Currently, private sales and gun shows can bypass federal background check requirements, creating a loophole that allows people with criminal records or histories of mental illness to acquire guns. Expanding background checks to cover all gun sales would help prevent dangerous individuals from obtaining firearms. Polls show that the vast majority of Americans, including gun owners, support universal background checks, making this a sensible first step toward reducing gun violence.

First, there is no "gun shows can bypass federal background check requirements." Licensed dealers at gun shows must follow federal law and conduct NICS checks. Those who are just renting a table to sell some of their personal firearms, so long as they're not engaging in the business of selling guns--and we'll have to fight about what that means--are just private sales that happen in a public venue. In that regard, it's no different than me connecting with someone in a Discord channel and meeting up in a Walmart parking lot to conduct the actual sale.

The fact that he's pushing this means he's either parroting talking points because he doesn't know what he's talking about.

But a case could be made that background checks don't really infringe on your rights. They might delay it slightly, but no more than having to get a permit in order to protest might. It's a nonsense argument, but I can see someone trying to make that, and I suspect Carter would, too.

Yet that's not the only infringement he's in favor of.

Another common-sense measure is implementing red flag laws, which allow law enforcement to temporarily remove firearms from individuals deemed a danger to themselves or others. These laws are designed to intervene before a tragedy occurs, such as a mass shooting or suicide. Several states have already enacted red flag laws, and the results show that they can help prevent violence without infringing on the rights of responsible gun owners.

Properly implemented, these laws could save lives by stopping potentially dangerous situations before they escalate. Limiting access to high-capacity magazines and military-style assault weapons is another step toward reducing the lethality of mass shootings. These weapons are often used in some of the deadliest incidents of gun violence, where the ability to fire rapidly and with large amounts of ammunition maximizes casualties. While banning these types of weapons won’t eliminate all gun violence, it would reduce the scale of destruction in mass shootings. These restrictions are already in place in several states and have proven effective without impacting the rights of hunters or recreational shooters.

There's absolutely no case to be made for respecting people's gun rights by taking guns away from people because someone else is a tad concerned nor is there any case to be made about banning entire categories of firearms, particularly when we remember why the Second  Amendment exists in the first place.

I fail to see how anyone can think there is.

Red flag laws take guns away from people without due process of law. We've seen multiple infringements on people's rights, including at least one case where someone had their guns taken because of second-hand information. How is that not an infringement on people's rights?

And while so many people latch onto the whole "A well regulated militia" thing, we need to remember that at the time of the nation's founding, the militia provided their own weapons. In other words, the Founding Fathers wanted us to have as much parity with military forces as humanly possible. That included things like cannons, for crying out loud. I don't care how many times Joe Biden denies it, that's just a simple historical fact.

Far too many anti-gunners like this guy like to pretend that if they just say there's a balance to be had, people should take them at their word.

But there is no balance. There's simply capitulation.

Today, it's these things. Tomorrow, it'll be still more.

No gun control advocate has ever seen a law passed and said, "That's it. That's enough for me. I'm opposing anything from here on." What's more, none ever will. There will always be just a little bit more and then another little bit, all until the right to keep and bear arms is as hollow as the 10th Amendment.

Carter isn't a big fish. I don't actually see him becoming any kind of threat to much of anything. Even if he wins, he won't amount to much in the Senate.

But he's also just an example of which there are tens of thousands of others running for public office now or in the future.