Columnist Tries and Fails to Make Reasonable Argument for Gun Control

As Minnesota lawmakers re-engage in the gun control debate as part of a special legislative session, the Second Amendment “issue” looms large in the state. That’s unsurprising. A lot of lawmakers represent urban areas, but a lot of others represent rural regions where they’re skeptical of anti-gun measures.

However, the issue is one of those where the two sides have been at loggerheads for years, and while Minnesota has seen some gun control recently, the big ask–an assault weapon ban–has largely failed.

Now, they’ll try again, and a columnist in the state seems to think that there’s a reasonable argument to be made for such a thing.

The original column is from 2022, so parts of it are dated. And in light of recent events, it may seem soft. I’ll be clear: In my ideal world, we’d ban weapons that can be used to kill many people quickly. I’m in favor of steps that might at least slow an evil-hearted person down. In an era with a seemingly renewed commitment in some quarters to states as competing laboratories of democracy, a patchwork of laws may be the best we can do. Minnesota could join the one-fifth of states with assault weapons bans. And Texans could keep their big guns in hand to battle roving bands of feral hogs, one of the few serious justifications I’m aware of and a problem Minnesotans don’t have.

What if instead of a promise “to get serious about gun violence” that would be unencumbered by his recently announced bid for a third term, Gov. Tim Walz had chosen to spend his political capital — all of it if necessary — to get a Minnesota ban on assault weapons passed?

But I’m also a realist. I know that a person who is determined to do harm will find a way. I know that most people who own guns respect their power. I know that, even where there are majorities in favor, restrictions on weaponry are a hard sell in our system.

…

That’s the message from my 2022 column that I’m most interested in renewing today — whether we’re talking about guns or any of our other divisions. Yeah, I know, I know: You first. I’d counter that all of us should be most concerned with what we do and less concerned about what they do.

It’s generational change that may not be completed in our time. But we can start.

That’s a lovely sentiment, but there’s one problem with that. 

The gun rights side had a long history of being accommodating. We were willing to give up a little in the name of safety, in the name of security, and in the name of playing nice. We may have opposed a federal waiting period, for example, during which time a background check was conducted, but we proposed an instant check system in return, which was accepted.

We played along with the National Firearms Act in 1934 and with the Gun Control Act in 1968. A lot of Republicans sided with the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, even.

And time and time again, what happened? The other side took it, and rather than just celebrate their victory, they started pushing for more and more.

Our Second Amendment has nothing to do with feral hogs–and I wouldn’t use an AR-15 on a feral hog unless I was already in trouble and it was all I had available–but with feral lawmakers who seek to impose tyranny on the public. We’ve allowed that argument, though, that somehow the right to keep and bear arms has something to do with hunting, to continue for far too long. Too many people, such as the author, think it’s reasonable; that he’s being reasonable.

But it’s not.

We’re not going to budge. We’re not even saying, “You first.” We’re saying, “Over our dead bodies.”

Why? Because we cannot be reasonable with unreasonable people. We can’t find common ground with people who see every concession as an enticement to keep pushing.

In fact, I’m more concerned with what we do, as the author asks, but what I do is obey the law, and people wanting to ban my guns are preoccupied with what a very tiny minority of people who have these rifles do with them.

So while I get that he thinks he’s being reasonable, what he’s actually doing is falling into the same trap of thinking that there’s some middle ground to be found.

There isn’t. Not anymore, at least, and as my friend Lawdog puts it, we want our cake back.

Editor’s Note: The mainstream media continues to lie about gun owners and the Second Amendment. 

Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.