Image 01 Image 03

When it Comes to Gun Control, Beto Has No Idea What He Wants

When it Comes to Gun Control, Beto Has No Idea What He Wants

Second Amendment. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It’s amazing how quickly the left went from “no one is going to take your guns” to “MANDATORY GUN BUY BACKS NOW!” But here we are.

Democrat Presidential hopeful (I guess?) former Rep. Beto O’Rourke is still campaigning, despite horrendous polling. When he’s not reassuring would-be illegal immigrants in Mexico that all is well or trashing America, Beto’s busy plotting ways to rid America of the second amendment.

Last week, Beto crammed everything on the gun grabbing wish list into one list: red flag laws, mandatory gun buybacks, and a national registry.

Fox News with the story:

He also promised a mandatory gun buyback that would see federal authorities force gun owners to sell certain firearms to the government, whether they wished to or not.

“A gun registry in this country, licensing for every American who owns a firearm, and every single one of those AR-15s and AK-47s will be bought back so they’re not on our streets, not in our homes, [and] do not take the lives of our fellow Americans,” O’Rourke said.

He made similar comments about gun control last Saturday in Charlottesville, Va., where he outlined his proposed plan and how it would work.

“I want to be really clear that, that’s exactly what we’re going to do,” O’Rourke said. “Americans who own AR-15s, AK-47s, will have to sell them to the government. We’re not going to allow them to stay on our streets, to show up in our communities, to be used against us in our synagogues, our churches, our mosques, our Walmarts, our public places.”

But in New Hampshire, O’Rourke said mandatory buy backs would be contingent upon citizen cooperation and then backtracked further saying, “You’ll have the input of members of Congress who are going to reflect their constituents’ interests, and at the end of the day, I agree to get to a solution that protects your Second Amendment rights while protecting the lives of everyone in this country.”

Pretty sure he has no idea what “protects your Second Amendment rights” really means. WaEx on this one:

“No. I don’t see the law enforcement going door to door. I see Americans complying with the law. I see us working with gun owners, non-gun owners, local, county, state, federal law enforcement to come up with the best possible solution. I have yet to meet an owner of an AR-15 who thinks it’s OK that we have these kind of mass killings in this country,” O’Rourke said when asked by the Washington Examiner about specifics of his plan.

When pressed further about how he plans to enforce his proposal for those who would not comply, he responded, “How do you — how do we enforce any law? There’s a significant reliance on people complying with the law. You know that a law is not created in a vacuum.”

He added, “You’ll have the input of members of Congress who are going to reflect their constituents’ interests, and at the end of the day, I agree to get to a solution that protects your Second Amendment rights while protecting the lives of everyone in this country.”

Dude has no clue what he’s talking about or what he wants. With each sad, passing campaign day, O’Rourke looks more like a message tester and much less like a candidate. Which I suppose is a good thing for all of us.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Weird that they’re not going after handguns, seeing as how they’re so concerned about gun violence. I mean, handguns are the real killers, not long guns.

    healthguyfsu in reply to BuckIV. | September 9, 2019 at 7:24 pm

    Not that weird considering the sources. Numbers don’t matter to them, optics do.

    Long guns are scary looking and are used by all of the media-celebrated mass shooters. Nevermind that they are more difficult to conceal and less often used in a homicide.

      Well, not all. Or maybe the MSM doesn’t celebrate those who use handguns (e.g. the VA Tech, 3d body count mass murder). But you are correct, numbers don’t count as there are more homicides each year from “personal weapons” (hands, feet, elbows, knees and pushing) than from rifles and shotguns combined.

        MajorWood in reply to Edward. | September 10, 2019 at 1:31 am

        I annoyed a person the other day by pointing out that all of the documented lynchings from 1870 to 1950 (4000) was the same as the number of black people killed by other black people in Baltimore (alone) for a 20 year period (1/4 the time to accumulate all of those lynchings). They really hate it when you frame the numbers with a more tangible setting.

          They do indeed. And then ignore the facts because their truth outweighs the facts. What was it Sleepy Joe (or is it “Handy Joe”) said, they believe in truth, not facts. If, by some strange quirk of fate, Joe gets the nomination President Trump is going to have so much fun with him.

      Exactly. Harder to use phrases like “weapons of war” against handguns.

    redc1c4 in reply to BuckIV. | September 9, 2019 at 7:47 pm

    those will be next, along with shotguns.

    give them time.

    Paul in reply to BuckIV. | September 9, 2019 at 8:02 pm

    Not weird at all when you consider the various reasons for the Second Amendment, the different types of guns and the scenarios for which they are best suited.

    Hand-guns are well suited for concealed carry and self-protection against criminals.

    Shotguns are great hunting weapons.

    Semi-automatic rifles are best suited for armed rebellion against a tyrannical government.

    They’re totalitarian tyrants, but they’re not dumb.

    PapaGuns in reply to BuckIV. | September 10, 2019 at 8:24 am

    it’s just so curious to me that these folks on the left are continually railing against the police and other law enforcement entities…I mean they hate em! but when it comes time to confiscate weapons from civilians, who do they look to in order to accomplish this?

    And lets not forget…these are the people that want you disarmed, they want open borders and they want the border patrol, ICE and the cops to be effectually disarmed and helpless all while they’re telling you that they hate you and everything you stand for and will be happy to see you jailed..or dead.

    And they have created Antifa to help them with that.

    so, does that make you want to just give up your guns or what??

      DaveGinOly in reply to PapaGuns. | September 11, 2019 at 10:19 pm

      What I find curious, and potentially troublesome, is how quickly the very same people who went batshit crazy when a “Nazi” was elected president now want the government to take everyone’s guns. They either don’t know what the Nazis were and what they did, or they don’t really believe DJT is a Nazi.

      Or they do know what the Nazis were and did, and do think Trump is a Nazi, but they intend to gain control of the government and never give it up (lest another Nazi is elected president).

Well, “Beto”, ask yourself, or better yet, answer me, what does the Supreme Court say about the second amendment? We can’t always agree with every decision, but they might have given you some guidance.

    alaskabob in reply to mrtomsr. | September 9, 2019 at 9:08 pm

    SCOTUS left a big loophole in Heller as I understand. SCOTUS said military weapons not covered. Since bolt action rifles were first and initially foremost designed, built and used as military weapons in the second half of the 1800’s and militaries afterward embraced the initially civilian semi-auto magazine feed rifle… where does it end? Yes… every type of firearm has been used as a “weapon of war”.

    Liberty, like good health, once lost is hard to regain.

      iconotastic in reply to alaskabob. | September 9, 2019 at 11:45 pm

      The M24 sniper rifle (aka Winchester Model 700) and the M2010 ESR are both bolt-action rifles used by military and police.

      I wonder if the SCOTUS thinks they can be confiscated as well, should the government decide that bolt action rifles are too powerful for mere subjects.

      Heller didn’t say military weapons aren’t covered by the Second Amendment (the Fourth Circuit did, see below). Heller held that weapons “which are in common use” by the public are protected. Weapons which are particularly “dangerous and unusual” (i.e. not usually owned by John Q. Public) MAY be regulated.

      That the lower courts have ignored Heller is the fault, and shame, of the SCOTUS for failing to take up any of the appeals from Circuit Court decisions which are not compatible with Heller, even where there has been a “Circuit split”. Of course there are four automatic votes to overturn Heller (and MacDonald) and it is possible that the four “conservatives” didn’t trust Kennedy to stick to his votes for Heller and MacDonald, so wouldn’t vote for certiorari to avoid the possibility of losing Heller’s slim protection until a changed Court membership occurred.

        DaveGinOly in reply to Edward. | September 11, 2019 at 10:27 pm

        Inoffensive language, not needing the protection of the First Amendment, is not the object of the amendment’s protection. Likewise inoffensive firearms are not the object of the Second Amendment’s protection. Only language and firearms considered offensive, objectionable, and dangerous need protection from those who would restrict their use. By the same principle that the Bill or Rights protects your freedom to flip off a cop it also protects your right to own an AR-15.

      PapaGuns in reply to alaskabob. | September 10, 2019 at 9:13 am

      how can military weapons NOT be covered by the 2nd amendment??? that’s exactly what it was written for!
      also did they just ignore the US V. Miller?

      no, I’ll be keeping my AR rifles, magazine fed rifles and any other type rifle I deem necessary to defend myself and my family with.
      This right was bestowed by my creator. not SCOTUS.

        Bruce Hayden in reply to PapaGuns. | September 10, 2019 at 12:26 pm

        Always keep in mind that the Militia clause in the 2nd Amdt does not refer to the National Guard. It refers to the type of militia that fought back against a British force dispatched from Boston to seize arms (mostly cannon, shot, and powder) from the American Colonials. The British embarked the night before on ships for the expedition. Surprise having been lost, Paul Revere and others sped towards these towns warning of the expedition. When the British force reached Lexington, only the local militia was there, and they were immediately overwhelmed. They then proceeded up to Concord, where they were met by a more sizable force, and ultimately turned back. Throughout the day, militias from surrounding towns continued to arrive, having been warned by those late riders, until they outnumbered the now retreating British, who ultimately broke ranks in their retreat, until they met a relieving force that had marched out from Boston after the commander their had discovered that surprise had been lost. They were then able to withdraw back to Boston in good order.

        This was a year before our Declaration of Independence and a dozen years before the 2nd Amdt was enacted. And long before the National Guard was invented. Several of those involved in the resistance in Boston in 1775, including John Adams and John Hancock, were involved in drafting these later documents. So when you read about a well regulated militia in the 2nd Amdt, our founders were talking about those small town militias in Massachusetts that had drilled in their town squares, and then came together from the surrounding countryside that fateful day in 1775 to turn back that British expedition, and started our War of Independence.

Watching this clown babble and flap his arms for five minutes is a real challenge. He’s like a teenager who never matured past 15. Can you picture him in the same room with Putin?

Most magazines for AR/AK type rifles use are 20 rounds. There are semi-auto pistols on the street right now that can hold 21 rounds not counting the extended ones which can carry even more. Pistols account for about 10 times the murders of rifles but to the Dims that has no meaning. This is not about gun control but gun confiscation! The mask has fallen off of the wolf wearing a sheep’s mask.

    tom_swift in reply to inspectorudy. | September 10, 2019 at 11:52 am

    Um . . . the AK47/AKM/AKS/AK74/etc rifles all used 30 round magazines as standard.

    The M16 had a 20 round magazine; the M16A1 and subsequent developments (that is, everything since 1967) have 30 round magazines as standard equipment. ARs take the same magazines.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to inspectorudy. | September 10, 2019 at 11:59 am

    Actually, with magazine technology having advanced since the 1960s, the standard for AR-15s (as well as M16s and M4 Carbines) is probably 30 round magazines now, not 20. Search the Internet for AR magazines, follow the links to sellers, and you will likely find significantly more 30 rounders for sale than 20 rounders, and then a smattering of 10 rounders for states that require low capacity magazines.

    The big problem with magazine restrictions is that every time that the gun grabbers start talking magazine restrictions, gun owners run out and buy tens of millions standard (20-30) round magazines. Which means that there are likely hundreds of millions of these magazines in private hands around the country. Probably more. I know people sitting on 100 of them.

    Think about this for a minute. Handgun magazines can cost $40 each, and the most typical size is probably 15 rounds. MagPul makes AR-15 magazines acceptable for use by our military, but with many more sold on the civilian side. 30 round Gen 3 magazines can be found in 10 packs for maybe $12 or so each. Gen 2 for a buck or two less. 20 and 10 rounders cost more. That means that you can buy 100 military quality 30 round magazines for just over $1,000. And people do buy them.

hey Beta!

you can’t buy back what never yours.

and no, i’m not surrendering a single firearm to your fascist a55.

molon labe, biaotch.

The left loves their “settled law” as long as it is leftist settled law. It’s clear that the gun control beta o’rourke wants isn’t about saving lives. If it was, he would support ‘Stop, Question, Frisk’ in high crime, high gun violence areas (democrat blue zones). This is settled law in Terry v Ohio, but I have never seen anyone on the left in support of this method for reducing gun deaths. As a matter of fact, the left finds Terry v Ohio as an aberration. beta’s ultimate goal is disarming Americans so they can be crushed with leftist policies and laws (new green deal etc). Make no mistake, beta and his ilk are tyrants, but impotent tyrants thanks to the 2nd Amendment.

    Mac45 in reply to CKYoung. | September 9, 2019 at 10:04 pm

    Terry v Ohio is quite possibly the worst decision, re: stop and frisk, ever handed down by any court.

    The facts of the case were that a police detective observed three men standing at a corner, Periodically, one of the men would walk slowly past the doorway of an open business. The detective never saw any evidence of a concealed weapon nor did the men commit any action which would be clearly indicative that they were about to commit any crime. The detective testified that he “divined” the fact that they were intent upon committing an armed robbery of the business due to his previous experience. So, he stopped them to conduct an interview. During the interview, the detective could not understand what Terry answered to one of his questions. Without asking Terry to repeat himself, the detective used this to justify a frisk of the three. During the frisk, he turned up one or more handguns. The men were charged with carrying concealed weapons, but never charged with any other crime, including conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The Court upheld the legality of the frisk. However, over the ensuing decades, the courts have continually restricted the circumstances necessary to legally justify a stop and frisk.

    The same thing has been happening with the 2nd Amendment. High court decisions have been relaxing the acceptable restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. What American have to continue to do, is to continue to demand their rights, under the 2nd Amendment, in court. The language of the 2nd is incredibly clear and unambiguous.

I wonder what Beta thinks about buying back guns from the Democratic base — that would be the unregistered, illegal weapons held by gangbangers and felons who commit mass shootings every weekend in the ‘hood. Funny how the Left demands registration and gun grabbing from the people least likely to commit a crime using a gun, but never address the inner city problem.

    That is because gun control has nothing to do with violence, saving lives, eliminating injuries or, frankly, very much to do with or about guns. It has everything to do with control of the people.

      tic...tic...BOOM in reply to Edward. | September 10, 2019 at 7:54 am

      With all of the talk from dems, has anyone noticed that there is no plan to take guns from criminals?

      fredp0444 in reply to Edward. | September 10, 2019 at 3:43 pm

      Perhaps Beto can tell us when he will start controlling the inner city cowboys who are responsible more killings then he cares to discuss.

Registration? Canada spent toms of money on registration and it didn’t help at all… but when it came to cutting it they couldn’t and wouldn’t.

Josh Sugarman of Handgun Control openly said that the public’s ignorance of firearms and the confusion and mischaracterization of “assault rifles” would be used to ban them. The next move will be for “sniper rifles”… which is any high powered rifle with scope. Present day precision rifles can bang a silhouette at 1000 yards all day long. “No one needs a weapon that can kill at 1000 yards”…

By the way… just what is a “protected” firearm under 2A?

    The SCOTUS decisions in Heller I and McDonald were a little vague in this regard. However, a careful reading of both would cover virtually any firearm which is able to be handled by a single individual. The Heller I decision made a case for 2A protection of even light infantry weapons. They even make the case that the 2nd Amendment would allow personal ownership of short barreled shotguns and rifles.

    Now, in Heller II, the 4th Circuit somehow managed to read into Heller that Heller was not applicable to military weapons, even though they are mentioned throughout as a justification for the 2nd being an individual right. From this they upheld the DC ban on AR-15 type weapons and high capacity magazines. However, the SCOTUS has not ruled on Heller II.

    The limits of the 2nd Amendment are still very much under review. The only reason for this is because the courts rule in a political manner, rather than a strictly judicial one.

      alaskabob in reply to Mac45. | September 9, 2019 at 10:35 pm

      Thanks for clarification! The Miller decision should have allowed short barreled shotguns since they were used in both the Civil War and WW1 …. Germans definitely did not like them in WW1!!

        Milhouse in reply to alaskabob. | September 10, 2019 at 2:23 am

        The Miller decision should have allowed short barreled shotguns since they were used in both the Civil War and WW1

        That was not in the evidence. The Supreme Court sent it back to the lower court to find out whether short barrelled shotguns have a legitimate militia use. That hearing never took place because the case became moot with Miller’s death.

      Edward in reply to Mac45. | September 9, 2019 at 11:55 pm

      After the initial appeal in Kolbe v. Hogan was decided against the MD Firearm Safety Act, the Gov (Hogan) asked for an en-banc hearing and the Fourth Circus en banc majority (10-4) upheld the Maryland ban on so-called assault weapons and “large capacity” magazines. The Fourth also instituted a new “test” which was whether a weapon was “useful” for military usage, in which case it is not covered by the Second in the Fourth Circuit. The Chief Judge had a field day, noting that the AR-15 fires 600 round per minute (IIRC, though I’ve never seen such a rifle). Can we say “hoplophobe”?

      For whatever reason (didn’t trust Kennedy to stick with his previous rulings in Heller and MacDonald?) the SCOTUS did not take up the case on appeal and it stands as “settled law” in MD.

        Edward in reply to Edward. | September 10, 2019 at 12:08 am

        Forgot – Heller wasn’t all that vague, the majority ruled that firearms (and accessories) “in common use” by the public are covered by the Second’s guarantee, subject to some regulation. The vagueness is hassling out what level of regulation, and what level of constitutional “scrutiny” is acceptable. Particularly until the correct level of scrutiny is laid out by the SCOTUS, there will continue to be lower courts which will try to stretch the meaning of Heller to ban just about any and every weapon possible.

        On a side note, I wonder if the current apparently higher level of mass shootings has any connection at all with the fact that the SCOTUS is taking up the first Second Amendment case since MacDonald? The Socialist-Democrats are doing their best to intimidate Roberts into upholding the NY law* under appeal, with several Socialist-Democrat Senators filing an alleged amicus brief which essentially says “You have a nice court there, it would be a shame if something happened to it, like court packing.” Just a random thought, but I’m not prone to believe in coincidence and random chance when Socialist-Democrats are involved.

        * After the Court granted cert, NY changed the law and then filed to dismiss on the basis that the challenge is moot as the law has been changed. The SCOTUS has always looked at such obvious efforts to avoid a decision as no reason to dismiss the case without a decision.

          Mac45 in reply to Edward. | September 10, 2019 at 10:42 am

          The terminology used, “in common use” is where the vagueness resides. As, the government has been restricting the “common use” of some infantry type weapons [fully automatic] and short barreled rifles and shotguns, this could be used to eliminate the possession of these weapons from being covered by the 2nd Amendment. The SCOTUS, in both Heller and McDonald, wanted to preserve the status quo with regard to types of weapons restricted and current restrictions on who can possess firearms and where they can be possessed. There was quite a but of politics involved in both these decisions.

The right to keep and bear arms… legs, a head, and life, necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed. Establishment of the Pro-Choice quasi-religion is unconstitutional on both civil and human rights grounds.

Beto is a wanker. ?

4th armored div | September 9, 2019 at 9:53 pm

i have poor vision – if you want me to keep reading this blog – whoch i have 10+ years then make it readable –
i will try to read for the next week –
if L*I does not return to previous or a better readable viewing page – i will, sadly have to no longer come back /sigh/.

    Try pressing Ctrl + on your keyboard for larger text. Each press makes the text larger. Pressing Ctrl 0 (zero) returns to “normal” size. Hope that helps.

    P.S.: “Preview” is not working for me on either Chrome or Firefox.

    Perhaps you might tell the editors what it is that is keeping you from being able to read LI?

    I have no issue. I don’t have bad vision however. But I’m not sure what a blog can do to fix your eyesight. You can increase the font size on your computer…

    Is it the font size? Or the contrast? What’s the exact complaint?

Venezuela sure went down hill rapidly after it disarmed its citizens. Let’s not be Venezuela.

    alaskabob in reply to Valerie. | September 9, 2019 at 11:40 pm

    Notice that Venezuela isn’t in the news anymore since the army sided with Maduro and the citizens were left with powerless posters , good thoughts and targets in their backs? Think it can’t happen here? Ask Tulsi and Mayor Pete what they would do to “support” socialist governmental ideology. For the USA, either The People have the power or the Military/Police do.

Beto may not know what he wants, but I know what I want.

Check out this full auto Glock 17:

I like to tell my lib friends that Trump, Putin and the NRA are working on a deal to import them to the US.

In short, they want power. The idea that somebody *could* resist their crude grasps for your rights and your money just irks them to no end. The concept of a free citizen who does not cower in fear from criminals and beg for the government to protect them does not fit into the Democrat playbook.

An unarmed person requires their assistance to protect themselves against the things that the Dems are more than happy to see pitted against citizens. The more afraid we are, the more we need them. Armed citizens are not afraid, and that is something they cannot stand.

Beto Beta is a harbinger of this entire generation. A Beta Male that takes responsibility for no wrong, but will gladly destroy the lives of millions for something he thought up while stoned.

I’ve finally figured out why Beto flaps his hands so much. He’s frantically trying to find his backside using both hands. He hasn’t succeeded yet. I suppose his wealthy wife could buy Beto a seeing eye dog to help Beto find his backside. But even with the dog, Beto’s not likeky to find it.

Robert Francis O’Rourke–the Alfred E. Neuman of Presidential candidates.

Beto thinks we’re going to register our firearms and then give the government the ones he doesn’t think we should own. Uh-huh. I can guarantee that’s not going to happen.

Yet another loony Texan not only “messin’ with Texas” but sounding every bit as radical as those fabled California crazies. Does everyone get it yet?

“BUY BACK” is one of the most insulting terms lefties have ever produced and they’ve come up with some whoppers.

“We’re gonna ‘buy back’ your gun….. that we didn’t sell you… and have never owned… but, no no, we’re not taking it, we’re buying it back!”

I would rather pluck lint from the navel of Rachel Jeantel than listen to this intellectual zero talk about anything other than how he likes spending his wife’s money. This guy is an insufferable twit.

so they’re not on our streets
Well, the problem is any buyback – even assuming 100% participation by legal gun owners (AKA free citizens) – won’t actually get anything “off the streets.”

I see us working with … non-gun owners
Ummmm…. The only possible way this has any meaning is to turn them into snitches for the Stasi.

Don’t remember who said it originally, but calling confiscation a “mandatory buyback” is like calling armed robbery a “compelled donation.”

Not to mention that the pittance they’ll be “paying” us for taking our arms, in a sarcastic nod to the 5th Amendment, will be our own tax dollars!

The only refreshing part is that they’re not trying to hide anymore by saying they’re not coming to take our guns away.

I’m not a Kennedy wannabe but I’m pretty sure SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means the same thing to everyone.

I find it staggering that he can say, “How do you — how do we enforce any law? There’s a significant reliance on people complying with the law. You know that a law is not created in a vacuum,” without ever recognizing that by criminalizing the law-abiding, he and his ilk are destroying our societal base of “people complying with the law.”

Our political system is a freaking circus. None of the politicians think beyond the short-term promises required to get them elected THIS time. And, we, the voters demand nothing more.

“Second Amendment. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

He and his fellow minded Marxist’s know exactly what it means.
It means if they are to have control over “We The People”,the people need to be disarmed,the very reason the founders wrote it as they did.

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

Come git some,Beto O’Dork !

Every time I think white-privilege is just victimization studies department gobbledygook, up pops Beto.

A well educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

So since ‘people will cooperate with law enforcement’ can MR O’Rourke please provide video footage of the 12 to 25 million illegal immigrants lining up at the nearest ICE facility for voluntary adjudication and deportation?

“When it Comes to Gun Control, Beto Has No Idea What He Wants”

I must disagree. Like all Leftist totalitarian dictator wannabes, he knows exactly what he wants: the complete disarmament of the citizenry so they cannot present a threat to his dictatorship.

Beta is close, but no cigar. I’ll voluntarily contribute all the bullets in all my “high-capacity” (standard-capacity) magazines directly to him before selling any of my weapons of war.

Beeto, like most Dems/Progs have a bunch of pseudo solutions in search of problems. The end game is all about control, everything, all the time. They know how to live your life better than you.

Buy backs have been the rule in inner cities as the way to control unregistered guns for quite a long time now. Perhaps Beto would give us verifiable numbers of the success it has been.

lord–and he calls himself a texan–what o’rourke has yet to realize is that due mainly to his ego, his big mouth and his ravenous lust for power, he’s easy to find

I don’t know much about guns, but isn’t an AK 47 an automatic weapon? Where in the US can you buy one? I have a good friend who has a ranch in Texas and they hunt feral pigs. I didn’t see any AK 47’s.

If the government can pick and choose which guns you own, and can tell you at the same time it is restricting your access to certain firearms that “you don’t need that gun,” and “we’re not infringing on the right to arms because you still have access to other firearms,” can it also ban Mormonism and Presbyterianism? After all, nobody needs those religions, and the bans wouldn’t infringe on freedom of religion, because there are so many other religions to choose from.

What is being taken from us, slowly but surely, is choice. First, we have the choice to exercise or not exercise a freedom. But once we’ve decided to exercise a freedom, government should have no role in determining for us the manner in which we exercise it.

And no, killing people in a mass shooting is not exercising a right; it’s committing a crime, something nobody has a right to do. Rights cannot be abused. As soon as an act intentionally injures an innocent party, the act ceases to be a right and has become a crime. The police don’t arrest people for abusing their rights; they arrest people for committing crimes.