The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Even if you think the “deny potential terrorists assault rifles”...

...bill was largely political theater, it’s important to remember that such theater usually ends with Congress going along with the script. Deceptively edited videos of Planned Parenthood workers nearly force a shutdown of the entire federal government, widespread fraud at VA hospitals creates a media firestorm and results in bipartisan reform, and 9/11 rescue workers get healthcare benefits only after Jon Stewart shames politicians into voting for it. Again, you may think that there are policy reasons against using the terrorist watch list to determine who can or cannot own a firearm, but far more flawed legislation has sailed through Congress on the strength of a national tragedy.

Again, there are flaws—perhaps even constitutional concerns—with using the terrorist watch list as the basis for such restrictions, but that is simply a question of due process. There is no doubt that Congress possesses the power to prevent individuals who pose a demonstrable threat of committing mass murder from acquiring an assault rifle. To assert otherwise is to believe in a right so broad that even our easily bypassed nationwide background check system should be struck down as unconstitutional. The right to own an assault rifle would be absolute, a right beyond all other rights.

As a kid, I took riflery classes in West Virginia and could understand why people thought of the single-bullet .22 rifles we fired as tools. As an adult, I once went to a shooting range to fire a semi-automatic handgun, and I was struck at how— ergonomically—a handgun was simply a vessel for shooting oneself and someone physically close to you. Today, I look at an assault rifle, and it is obvious that its chief, intended purpose is the killing of a cluster of human beings otherwise unable to protect themselves in time.