I am Sorry, but you're Wrong

As a person is supports the right of a private citizen to keep firearms for their own protection I have an important announcement for anyone who believes that the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution creates a limitless right to guy ownership.

You are wrong.

Its just that simple. There is no limitless right to gun ownership, just as there is no limitless right to speech. The Supreme Court established that both of those rights are subject to reasonable restriction. This means for example that your right to free speech stops when you stop telling the truth or when your speech creates the imminent threat of lawless activity. It also means that government regulation of firearms is not a death knell for gun ownership.

This week a minority of Senators representing a minority of a minority of citizen blocked legislation containing provisions supported by 90% of Americans from even getting the chance at an up or down vote on its merits. It failed because the NRA and other pro-gun manufacture groups (because that's what these groups support, not gun owners) lie. These groups lied and scared people into believing that this legislation is the beginning of the government coming for their guns. They also scared legislators with threats to withhold campaign donations or to support someone else. So those Senators used a long existing, but recently grossly abused, tactic to kill this legislation before it reached a point where a simple majority of Senators could voice their approval and allow it to progress to the House (where it likely would have died for the same reasons).

To those people who say that this legislation is a stepping stone to a national registry of guns,

You Are Wrong.

In fact the legislation specifically creates a criminal penalty for anyone attempting to create such a registry. But while we're on the subject, why is a national registry a bad idea? The 2nd Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." A national registry makes locating those who have the greatest ability to serve in a militia for the defense of the county possible. It makes solving crimes easier for police. It makes it easier to see where illegal gun sales occur. If you are a responsible gun owner why are you opposed to any of these things?

Not to squelch counter-arguments before someone makes them, but the first person who says, "I need a gun to defend myself from the government and a registry tells them where to start the confiscations," is getting a verbal smack-down.

Here's three reasons that argument fails:

1. If the government is coming for you, no amount of weapons you can buy will stop it. You cannot afford to oppose an AC-130 or Apache attack helicopter. 
2. Do you really believe that the U.S. military and law enforcement would participate in the complete disarming of private citizens? If so, nothing I say will change your mind, but just for a moment think about what part of the population would be needed to enforce either an illegal taking or to change the Constitution to make such a seizure legal.
3. No one wants to take your guns. This has never been an idea put forward by anyone seriously involved in the debate. Yes there are plenty of loud voices say that guns are the problem and we need to eliminate them, but there are also a lot of voices saying we need to get rid of all taxes and that's not happening any time either.

I support the right to keep and bear arms. I support concealed carry. I think that a ban of "assault style" weapons is a waste of time and I question the usefulness of a magazine capacity limit.

I support universal background checks to prevent those with criminal convictions and the mentally ill from purchasing guns.

I support heavy punishments for legal purchasers who fail to report lost or stolen guns that are later used in the commission of a crime.

I support harsh punishments for those who engage in "straw-man" buys.

I support the ability to engage in significant study  of gun related issues (something that is extremely difficult under current law)

I support the ATF having a Director, something that hasn't happened in seven years.

All of these things have the potential to decrease gun related violence, crimes committed with guns, and make the country a safer place.

I encourage people who disagree with me to present me with good arguments because I'm willing to listen, but expect me to come back at you as strong as you come at me, because I hold these belief strongly and will defend them.