Gun-control mistakes

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Mistake #1 is the name. The first part of the mistake is using the term "gun" in naming these type of laws. A name that suggests controlling guns are the aim of a law seems more acceptable to folks who own or plan to acquire guns. At least it sounds more acceptable than "gun owner restrictions". Naming guns also allows those reading that title to subconsciously affix some blame for gun crimes to the gun itself. The second part of the mistake is using the term "control". When have you heard of traffic laws referred to as "car control"? Outside of places like ADX Florence or maybe some concen... er ICE detention centers, the only real control in the US is "self-control".

Mistake #2 is the idea that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that empowers government to form militias. Governments do not have rights. If you think that collectives haves rights, you should probably be okay with Citizens United v. FEC. Governments have powers which are derived from the consent of of governed. The Bill of Rights and the whole Constitution never use the term "rights" for a power or authority held by the government.

Mistake #3 is defending the right of gun ownership only in connection to militia service. In the US in the eighteenth century militia service was a duty. Government had (has) the power of conscription. Some restrictionist folks say that we no longer have a militia nor a militia duty and no longer have a right to own guns in consequence to that. Why would ending a duty cancel a right?

Mistake #4 is working to ban "assault weapons". The military defines "assault rifles" as being capable of both semi-auto and full-auto fire. Civilian semi-auto only rifles are not and should not be called "assault rifles". It's confusing. If your aim is to confuse, you have no credibility. The only meaningful distinction here should be rate of fire. Having a bayonet lug or pistol grip is irrelevant.

Mistake #5 is trying to repeal the PLCAA. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act essentially says that you cannot hold a manufacturer operating within the law responsible for the criminal actions of an owner.