By: Nathanael Sorell

Nathanael Sorell
Sat, 14 Sep 2019 18:11:48 +0000

The article started with the mentions on the restriction of the Tommy gun. Which was done by passing the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), during the height of gang violence caused by the prohibition of alcohol. Which restricted and placed heavy taxes on fully-automatic firearms, short barrel rifles/shotguns. The original drafting of the NFA even listed pistols as one of the restricted firearms. The NFA was challenged in the 1939 Supreme Court case, United States v. Miller. The court ruled that the NFA was constitutional because the short barrel shotgun which the defendant had wasn’t used by the military, and the 2nd amendment only guaranteed the right to own weapons the military uses.(1) This ruling showed that the passing of the NFA didn’t set a precedent for the government to ban any weapons it liked to ban. Although I still consider the NFA unconstitutional, part of the justification of the ruling was that the government had the ability to collect revenue, so taxes on firearms were allowed. Can the government also put an unreasonably high tax on speech too, like taxing social media posts or newspaper prints?

Professor Ruth talked about banning “semi-automatic assault weapons” the problem with this is what is an “assault weapon.” As defined in the assault weapons ban of 1994, an assault weapon is any semi-auto rifle that has certain types of grips, adjustable stocks, barrel shroud, flash hiders, bayonet lug, etc. Only restricting cosmetic features and accessories, this is because these stocks and grips make a gun look aggressive. In combination with an “assault” prefix, it triggers an emotional response which makes people more willing to ban them. While fewer people want to ban older, traditional-looking semi-auto rifles. This is like attempting to reduce speeding by banning “high-speed racing style cars”, prohibiting the installation of tail fins, spoilers, mufflers, and adjustable seats. These laws are just feel-good legislation that punishes law-abiding citizens and does nothing to save lives. An assault weapon ban was in effect from 1994 to 2004, studies, including ones done by the NIJ, show that it had no or unnoticeable effect on homicides. (2,3,4) People also ignore that rifles (including “assault-style rifles”) are responsible for an extremely small amount of homicides. In 2017, 403 were killed in a homicide with a rifle while 15,129 were killed in all homicides. (5) Some more extreme gun control proponents push for the banning of all semi-automatic weapons. But that will be the majority of firearms in the US, including virtually all pistols. Being an extreme infringement on our rights, ineffective, and impractical.

Professor Roth states that “We have given single individuals the capacity to commit mass murder. Every other way that people use technology to commit mass murder we’ve limited access.” It is true that rights the people have can be abused. The right against unreasonable searches and seizures certainly made life for drug dealers a lot easier. Illegally selling drugs leading to overdose has killed more than 70,000 people in 2017.(6) More than 800 times the amount of people killed in all mass shootings where 4+ people died. (7)

As for every other method for mass murder is restricted isn’t really true too. I’m not aware of how monitoring truck rental patterns can prevent truck attacks since perpetrators normally only rent the truck once to carry out an attack. It’s also easy to acquire ingredients for explosives. Ammonium Nitrate – Fuel Oil (ANFO) is an explosive widely used by terrorists around the world to make IEDs. The Oklahoma City Bombing was carried out using a truck full of ANFO, resulting in 168 dead, 680 injured. ANFO is made by combining Ammonium Nitrate (a widely used fertilizer) and fuel oil (like diesel). With ammonia nitrate limited to 25 lbs per purchase, before requiring a background check. (8) 25 lb of ANFO can easily kill 30 people in a crowded area if used with shrapnel like ball bearings. This regulation can also be avoided by purchasing from multiple locations. Firearms are pretty restricted now too, background checks required for all purchases from a dealer. In Ohio, a license is required to carry a concealed pistol, and you still can’t carry it to many places. Many other states place much heavy gun control restrictions while seeing virtually no effect in homicide reductions.

Red flag laws are extremely problematic because it seeks to strip people of their rights without due process, not even being notified of its happening. With police raiding someone’s home looking for weapons. This has led to the death of a person in Maryland which has red flag laws.(9) The person refused to give up his weapon during a police raid, so he was shot and killed by police. Red flag laws is an extremely dangerous precedent to set. Where the government is granted the power to use force to remove someone of their rights without due process. If someone is making threats or exhibiting extreme mental health problems. They should be arrested, institutionalized or treated through proper procedure. Then the person can lose their right to bear arms.

I’m not arguing that the average person should have access to Stinger Missiles or nerve agents. At minimum, individuals have the right to own a basic individual weapon, like a modern semi-auto rifle. As Ben Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

I had to remove links to sources because it wouldn’t let me post links.