Gun control laws won't fix the violence

I'm tired of Democrats whining about the necessity for passing an assault weapons ban. Even if it passed and signed into law by Gov. Walz, which is far from certain, it won't survive the appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Let's stipulate, though, for this conversation that it survived judicial scrutiny. It wouldn't eliminate violence. It'd just eliminate violence from that type of weapon.

That's because the gun is just the tool. It isn't the catalyst. It's like eliminating a car that was driven by a drunk driver. The car is gone but the drunk is still free to buy a different vehicle. The problem persists.

Banning assault weapons, which is nothing more than a wierd-looking semi-automatic rifle, will do nothing to prevent violent crime. When assault weapons were banned, like during the 1990s, violent crime went dow because we had additional officers walking the streets or patrolling in squad cars. Further, banning assault weapons hadn't been ruled on.

These days, the law of the land is determined by the Supreme Court rulings of Heller (DC), McDonald (Chicago) and Bruin (NYC). The Supreme Court ruled that banning any firearms used for self-defense and that are in common use can't be banned. The only way to ban assault weapons is to first repeal the Second Amendment. All it takes to do that is repeal that Amendment. That's fairly simple. First, you'd need 290 people to vote aye to repeal that amendment in the House. Next, you'd need 67 senators to vote for that exact resolution repealing that amendment in the Senate.

That's the easy part. Next is the difficult part. After getting the House and Senate to pass that repeal resolution, you then get to persuade 38 states to repeal the Second Amendment. That means you start over again if 13 or more states vote to not accept the repeal. If, for instance, Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Utah, Idaho, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Florida and Georgia vote to reject repealing the Second Amendment, vote no on repeal, that starts the process all over again. That's actually 16 states. You'd only need 13 of those 16 states to say no.

Does Gov. Walz seriously think that banning assault weapons will fix the problem? If he's pushing for a vote on banning assault weapons, where will he get the DFL votes to pass that ban? I don't think he's close on the DFL side in the House or Senate. This report is silent about it being illegal to ban assault weapons:

If I didn't know better, I'd almost think that the Twin Cities media is cheerleading for the DFL. Then again, it isn't a stretch to think that DFL legislators think it's ok to cheer the assassination of Charlie Kirk :

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Has Sue Ek come face-to-face with DFL hijinks?

BREAKING NEWS: counterfeit ballot alert in Minnesota

Tim Walz doubling down on Gestapo speech