Predictable Calls for Gun Control

The Democrats predictably called for more gun control after the Atlanta and Boulder shootings, like they always do.  But their proposals, by and large, would not prevent future mass shootings.

Let’s look at the Boulder case.  Gun control started ramping up in Colorado after Columbine, but it’s as useless there as it’s proven to be in Chicago where wholesale slaughter still occurs on a weekly basis.  Colorado already has universal background checks, large-capacity magazine bans, and a ‘red flag’ law.  But none of these restrictions stopped the Boulder attack.  The ‘red flag’ law had no effect in this case, despite the fact the family knew he had the rifle and his older brother said the suspect was mentally ill.   “Colorado has every gun law known to this country … but that didn’t prevent this incident,” a former FBI official told Fox News. More gun control measures already under consideration in Colorado before the shooting would tighten gun-storage rules and require reporting of lost or stolen firearms.  Based on what we know so far, neither of these proposals would have had any bearing on the shooting. 
 
The shooter had an AR-15 style rifle and a semiautomatic pistol.  He bought them on March 16th despite a juvenile guilty plea to assault in 2017.  Juvenile records are typically sealed, and for good reasons.   Boulder had an assault weapons ban until March 12th when it was temporarily blocked by a judge in a gun rights case.  Some say keeping the ban in place would have stopped the shooting, but the suspect didn’t live in Boulder; he drove in from another town.  Moreover, Boulder apparently wasn’t enforcing its assault weapons ban, anyway. 
 
Gun control is an invitation to endless whack-a-mole.  Whenever a law doesn’t work as advertised, there are calls for more laws.  If the laws aren’t enforced, well then maybe we need to force officials to enforce the unenforced laws more.  If shootings continue after all that , then we need a federal universal background check, even though a study showed the vast majority of the guns used in almost 20 mass shootings were purchased with a federal background check.  The shooters in Orlando and Las Vegas passed their background checks.  All these laws can be evaded by straw purchases, where individuals ask other people to buy guns for them.  Even if you were to write an entire Napoleonic Code to cover every conceivable situation, you would still have knife attacks with multiple victims as occurred on the London Bridge in 2019.  It’s a fool’s errand; the problem needs to be solved some other way. 
 
It’s being argued that a federal assault weapons ban would put a stop to all mass shootings like the one in Boulder.  Maybe, but ask yourself some questions:  How authoritarian do you want to get?  How does taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens reduce crime?   Why take away rights from all Americans when only a tiny handful poses any problem?
 
H.R. 127, introduced in Congress in January, would, among other things, mandate a federal gun license, start up a national gun registry, require a mental health exam for ALL gun owners, and require every gun owner to purchase liability insurance.  This flips the Constitution on its head.  Instead of being born with a right to bear arms, everyone would have to petition the government to grant them the privilege of gun ownership.  There are good reasons not to turn our rights into privileges the government can take away at any time.  Think about free speech, for example.  What if you had to get a federal license before you could post on social media, and the government official handling your request didn’t like your politics?  Natural unalienable rights or government privileges - to me, the choice is clear.
 
The people in government predictably calling for more gun control at the moment are authoritarians to their fingertips.  They want ALL my rights, so I’m not willing to give them ANY of my rights.  They won’t stop with a federal assault weapons ban or a gun registry, just ask them.  They won’t be satisfied until nobody has a gun.  I’m sorry, but they are precisely the kind of people - unapologetic power-hungry authoritarians - that the Second Amendment is meant to protect us from.