Gun control is sold to people as a way to keep folks safe, that it hurts criminals and protects regular, law-abiding people like you and me. That’s what they say, and that’s how they frame literally any bit of gun control that rolls down the line.
We know better, but the media tends not to give us too much attention.
So it’s unsurprising that Nevada has a trio of gun control bills that, upon even a cursory look, are clearly not going to do anything except hurt law-abiding people.
Several pieces of Democrat-backed gun legislation have been heard by Nevada’s Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees but not without opposition from firearms proponents.
Assembly Bill 105 would ban firearms within 100 feet of election sites. Assembly Bill 245 would prohibit anyone younger than 21 from purchasing or possessing a semiautomatic shotgun or assault rifle. And Senate Bill 89 would tighten firearm restrictions for those convicted of hate crimes.
So AB 105 will make it so people can’t even safely or legally leave their guns in their cars while they go vote, thus potentially keeping some people away from the polls on election day–funny considering how Democrats tend to want to boost turnout, isn’t it?
AB 245 would prohibit legal adults under 21 from owning two more kinds of firearms that are popular for self-defense. They’re old enough to live on their own, vote, serve in the military, etc, but they’re not old enough to defend the home they live in all by themselves? That’s not remotely right. While there are still some options left under this measure, the truth is that it narrows them down so that these adults can’t make the decision for themselves, which means gun ownership isn’t much of a right at all for this demographic.
Now, let’s get into SB 89 for a second.
Sen. Julie Pazina, D-Las Vegas, said as the temperature of national discourse increases, it is imperative the measures be passed.
“The consequences of this divisiveness are real and they can’t be ignored any longer,” Pazina emphasized. “As a Jewish Nevadan, I have witnessed my communities and others like it come under attack simply because of the way we worship.”
Pazina noted members of Nevada’s LGBTQ+ community as well as ethnic and racial groups have also been targets of attacks. Each year more than 10,000 violent hate crime attacks involve either the use or threatened use of guns in the U.S., according to Giffords, the gun violence prevention organization.
Now, I’m not remotely comfortable with the concept of hate crimes in general. The idea of somehow treating a crime differently because of someone’s opinions doesn’t sit well with me at all. The act itself is what we should be focused on, not the opinions. Especially considering how many times most of us have been accused of being some kind of a hateful bigot simply because we didn’t share a particular political opinion.
But if you’re going to have hate crimes, and decide that hate crimes are so bad that people should be restricted from owning guns because of it, then why not make them felonies in the first place?
Honestly, if your argument is that these people are so vile because of these opinions that their crimes warrant them being disarmed, then why does it not warrant the potential for a year in prison?
If your argument is that they don’t rise to that level of “bad,” then why should their rights be restricted in other ways and for far longer?
And if someone is so hateful that they want to hurt people, do you really think they won’t have another way to get a gun? Seriously?
None of these laws will do anything to make people safer and may actually make people less safe in most cases. Anti-gunners are well past the point of needing to knock this stupid stuff off.
Read the full article here
