Government sappin’ mah 2nd Amendment rights!
Recently, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (or ATF) apologized for a “publishing error” that suggested that they were trying to ban the sale of AR-15 ammo. This is contradictory at best, as the agency is trying to ban “green tipped” ammo, commonly used in AR-15 rifles. On top of that, the current administration has supported legislation that would make America’s favorite rifle illegal to own. So forgive me if I don’t buy the ATF’s apology.
Of course, the apology isn’t the subject of today’s rant: its the right’s reaction. Just as you’d expect, pro-gun activists and Republicans are in a frenzy, claiming its a violation of their second amendment rights, that Obama is overstepping his boundaries as president, and so on. Rand Paul even urged people to thwart Obama’s “backdoor methods”. The response is typical at this point, but what’s weird is what they’re getting mad about.
For starters, the ammo they’re defending is armor piercing rounds. Now I know the AR-15 is commonly used for hunting nowadays, and its perfectly legal to hunt with one. However, I have to question anyone who believes that believes that taking away a round that can tear through bullet proof vests (no exaggeration here). What, are they hunting elephants? Do the local deer all wear tank armor? Common sense would dictate that you don’t really need armor piercing rounds for recreational purposes.
Another thing I have to question is why they're using the second amendment defense for assault rifles. The AR-15 has fire 90 rounds per minute on its real-auto rate, and while I know no one is using that rate for hunting, that’s still a lot of bullets. I could understand applying the second amendment to pistols or even hunting rifles, but for guns that would be used in military operations? I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t trust anyone with an assault rifle in public. It scares me and I’m sure it scares a lot of people.
Look, I’m not anti-gun. I think its fine for civilians to have guns, but there have to be parameters for having one. Are you mentally stable? What is the gun for? What type of gun do you want? These seem like common sense regulations to me. I wouldn’t want someone mentally unstable handling a gun, nor do I want anyone who isn’t in a battle handling an assault rifle. Self defence and hunting guns are perfectly fine.
Yes, I know what the second amendment says. However, I think we can have regulations without infringing on these rights. People keep saying that you have to choose between freedom (our Constitution) and security (regulations), but I think its a false dichotomy. Its fully possible to have both. You may not get as much freedom as you think you want, but you can still have those freedoms with common sense regulations. Seriously, it's sometimes okay to give up some freedoms for the good of society. Heck, that’s kind of the point of society.
I hope this whole thing doesn’t evolve into a national issue. I also hope that gun rights activists can come up with a better reason to carry assault rifles in public that isn’t “the second amendment says I can.” Until then, I will continue to believe in common sense gun safety laws.