In a Sept. 18 Monitor opinion article, the authors claimed to have discovered that the “real” goal of gun control advocates is to ban all firearms.
This claim is clearly a lie. And not even a very good lie. Restricting ownership of assault rifles to military personnel, in the same way that ownership of other military weapons (e.g. mortars, machine guns, tanks and rocket launchers) is restricted, is a sensible goal. I am strongly in favor of it. But if someone insists on fantasizing that the “real” goal is to ban personal ownership of all firearms, why stop at just firearms? Why not take the fantasy even further to include swords, arrows, knives and rocks? And don’t forget yo-yos; they were originally weapons. I can hear it now: “They’re coming for our yo-yos!”
Those who believe that restricting military weapons to military personnel violates the Second Amendment actually want such a law to be enacted, so it could be quickly challenged in federal court and declared unconstitutional. That would end the matter once and for all. But these authors believe the exact opposite. They understand the Second Amendment well enough to know that sensible restrictions are perfectly consistent with the Constitution as interpreted by even the most conservative justices. They realize that such a law would be upheld and nobody’s rights would be trampled. They don’t want their fantasy world disturbed by reality.
DAVID HAGNER
Concord