More Gun Shit

At this point, I've written so many times about guns that I don't know what else to say. None of us do. It's the same fuckin' merry-go-round of arguments that really come back to, for me, the simple question: "Well, why don't we try something?" Because, see, as of now, as of the last 15 years or so, we haven't done anything except make it easier for people to get more guns and ammo. So let's try something.

When I posted on Twitter that I thought assault weapons should be outlawed and then gathered by law enforcement through a buyback, I ended by saying that if that doesn't work, "pry them from cold, dead hands." Predictably, that led to responses like "Try it, pussy" or "So you want the government to kill people to get guns. That's why we have guns" or other gun shit. I don't want mass murder. I don't want civil war. I'm not even proposing banning all guns. But if laws change, as they sometimes do, you gotta follow them or you get arrested. When the speed limit went down on my street, I didn't say, "Fuck you, motherfuckers. I'm doing the old speed." And if you won't comply with the law peacefully, well, shit, Cletus, that's on you.

All I want at this point is to go back to the Republican assault weapons ban from 1989, which happened after a school shooting in Stockton, California, that left 5 dead. It seems like a quaint number now in the age of regular double-digit corpse counts, but it shocked the country. And George H. W. Bush signed an executive order banning certain assault weapons. Then, urged by Carter, Ford, and Reagan, in 1994, the Congress passed a crime bill with a weaker ban, but it was still there.

As far as the legality of that ban, the Supreme Court never took it up. A lower court said it was constitutional. And, just a couple of months ago, the Supreme Court let stand a U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that an assault weapons ban in Maryland was totally constitutional. By 10-4 vote, the circuit court, which is not "liberal" or "activist" by any stretch, said, "Assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment." And SCOTUS let it stand.

Here's what would happen if AR-15s and the like were banned: Almost everyone who owns one would turn it in for buyback cash because they are law-abiding citizens. A few would try to protest and then have their guns taken when they're peacefully arrested. A tiny number would keep them secretly. Maybe a couple of idiots would try to Ruby Ridge it. We know how that ended. And some criminals would be criminals about it. But considering that most of the guns used in mass shootings are bought legally, at the very least, maybe we'd save some children's lives.

And, honestly, I have never heard of a situation where an AR-15 was the only gun necessary to defend oneself. Sure, you can show someone a gun and they'll back down, but, shit, that'd work if you had a little revolver. When is the last time an ordinary American was in a bind where they needed a semi-automatic rifle?