Four years ago, when the country was still reeling in the aftermath of the 2020 election and the Capitol protest of Jan. 6, 2021, every loudmouth liberal — politicians, editorial writers, opinion columnists and barstool boors — was mouthing the same thing about people on the losing side: They were all branded “election deniers.”
It was nothing new, really. Back in 2017 and for the next couple of years, Hillary Clinton was travelling around the country and even around the world, blaming everyone and everything other than herself for losing in November 2016. She simply couldn’t acknowledge she was a lousy candidate and her campaign people weren’t very good at counting Electoral College votes.
And so it goes with gun prohibitionists. Whether they are federal court judges, state-level politicians, members of Congress or members of the media, there are legions of people who stubbornly refuse to recognize U.S. Supreme Court rulings in 2008 (Heller), 2010 (McDonald) and 2022 (Bruen), all of which affirmed the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. The definition of this problem is DENIAL.
Even today, with all of the evidence and settled law running against them, gun control zealots continue insisting the high court was wrong. They claim the bearing of arms applies only to members of the militia, whom they define as members of the National Guard. If they get tripped up on that argument, they zero in on the term “well-regulated,” insisting it refers to strict gun control, which it certainly does not.
Long story short, the gun prohibition movement — a label which they will vehemently reject — is fresh out of rational arguments and truth left them in the dust a long time ago.
Some months ago, I had an exchange of emails with a liberal newspaper columnist who didn’t think people should be upset about having to jump through bureaucratic hoops in order to purchase a firearm. It became obvious this fellow wasn’t concerned about infringing on someone else’s rights, especially rights with which he did not agree. Background check? No big deal. Waiting period? No great inconvenience. It wasn’t his ox getting gored, and besides, I was reminded, guns can be used to kill people.
Yeah, and so can knives, scissors, golf clubs, baseball bats, tire irons, claw hammers, hatchets, axes, bricks, rocks, screwdrivers, shovels, jack handles, ropes, table lamps, skateboards and a host of other objects which all have one thing in common: None of these things require a background check at time and point of purchase. There are no waiting periods. You don’t have to provide identification, proof of citizenship or anything but cash or a credit card.
The right to keep and bear arms, which is protected by the Second Amendment, is the only constitutionally enumerated right subjected to this degree of prior restraint. No other tenet in the Bill of Rights is so encumbered with prerequisites as the Second Amendment.
“But guns need to be regulated,” is the stock argument from the gun ban crowd.
Our answer should be, “We’re not talking about guns; we’re talking about rights!”
Talking point — What other right do anti-gunners think should require getting a permit from police before exercising it?
Talking point — Nobody would tolerate having to wait three, seven or 10 days to speak with an attorney if they were arrested and charged with a crime.
Talking point — “Mandatory buyback” is gun confiscation with compensation, and is tantamount to committing sexual assault but then tossing $20 to the victim.
Talking point — Saying nobody is coming after anyone’s guns in one breath, and then immediately saying so-called “assault weapons” should be banned is absolutely contradictory. Banning an entire class of firearms translates to taking someone’s gun(s). Insisting otherwise is delusional.
The Next Big Thing
If the Supreme Court hasn’t already done so by the time you read this, sometime this spring the nine justices will hand down a ruling in the case known as Garland v. VanDerStok which will either affirm or reject the ability of the government (the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) to regulate so-called “ghost guns.” These are firearms built by home gunsmiths using parts kits that are not serialized.
If the Court says unserialized guns are protected by the Second Amendment, listen for shrieks of agony and predictions of the downfall of modern civilization from the same people who insist there really is no individual right to keep and bear arms. This, too, would be an exhibition of denial from a crowd who believes constitutional protections only apply to rights they favor.
On the other hand, if the Court says homemade firearms must have serial numbers, it may not alter the social/political landscape all that much unless there is an effort to build a registry of those firearms. Then watch for a flood of litigation based on Second and Fourth Amendment grounds.
Such a scenario would put liberals in a very tough spot because they would be immediately faced with a challenging dilemma: How will this be enforced? Police simply cannot just walk into someone’s home and start searching for unserialized firearms, same as they cannot just walk into someone’s home and search through private papers, or look for other items. Civil rights attorneys will get rich because more than one right would be trampled on, and at that point, we’re talking about constitutionally protected rights liberals do value and will zealously protect.
Which brings us back around to rights, and denial. Rights are special, they are all equal in importance and are therefore entitled to the same ferocious defense. Gun owners are already well aware of this principle, while anti-gunners are behind the learning curve.
So long as we keep in perspective this conflict is not about guns, but about rights, the Second Amendment community will continue to hold the high ground. We cannot afford to give it up without a fight.