The right to bear arms has been debated for a long time. Supporters of this right cite the second amendment and worry that any infringement of this right will lead to a slippery slope ending with the disarming of law-abiding citizens. This argument ignores the fact that we have already slipped down the slope in their favor by extending this right from "a well-regulated militia" to all individuals. Supporters have refused to consider red flag laws in cases of mental illness, domestic violence and a criminal record. The more extreme even refuse to exclude individuals on terrorist watch lists from gun ownership. The rights of hunters and sportsmen are another smokescreen raised by gun rights advocates. Supporters also claim that the right to bear arms protects against an oppressive government. Their idea of an oppressive government is, presumably, one elected by fellow citizens who disagree with them. The fact is that mass shootings, violent crime, suicide and accidental death by a firearm are regular occurrences while the bogey-man of "oppressive government" has not materialized. And assault weapons are not necessary for personal defense or for hunting. It is time to state clearly that there is no slippery slope in the other direction. The majority public opinion favors restrictions based on reasonable concerns. The middle of the road on this issue is actually in the majority but is unable to enact reasonable restrictions because the issue ends up in the Supreme Court where it is rejected by a 5-4 vote. Given this scenario, the only solution is for the majority on this issue to assert itself at the polls and make this a litmus test for elected representatives at all levels. I don't want to speculate what the gun lobby will do if enough voters make this their decisive issue this November. But the fact is that the gun rights people are not going to voluntarily give an inch.
- drrama7