The lamestream media told you:
We have to take away the “assault weapons.” These are too dangerous to have on “our streets.” “We don’t want to take away all your guns,” says Mr. Hogg, convincingly, despite what all his supporters and media lapdogs say. The “assault weapon” ban simply bans anything with a magazine… and a grip.
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
Civilians must have armed parity with police. That was the principle behind the Second Amendment. Government could not get out of hand if the the people were armed, the last bulwark against tyranny.
Infringement is banned in no uncertain terms in the Constitution. Taking or attempting to take legally owned guns from the public is infringement. Those who would infringe upon the public’s right to possess and possession of arms must face punishment. It is not something they can simply do. Removing or outlawing firearms from the public is forbidden.
The actions of criminals, no matter how bad those acts may be, do not justify illegal actions against the public. Such logic is emblematic of the irrational behavior of so-called progressives in general. It is a sign of people who need medical treatment and are not getting any. It represents, among other problems, the logic error, appelare desperadi, “we must do something.” You should not do something, you should do the right thing.
Disarming the public is not even remotely a solution to the actions of criminals or insane people. In fact, it only makes matters worse, by leaving the innocent helpless in the face of miscreants and sociopaths. Failure to see this is a sign of untreated hoplophobia.
One way of fighting this, untested at the current time, is creed discrimination. It is illegal to discriminate based upon creed. Though creed is often viewed in a religious context, it is also equally valid in a socio-political context. The fierce attachment with which many Americans cling to their right to arms is indeed a creed, dating back to Colonial times. Singling citizens out for special legal action is creed discrimination and illegal under civil-rights statutes. Where are the creative and ambitious civil-rights attorneys looking to break new ground and make a name for themselves…