AmmoLand – by Mary “Dynk” McDonald
USA –-(Ammoland.com)- Returning to the justification for increased legislation based on comparing firearms to cars, the arguments stated are easily debunked.
Rationalizing the need to own a particular type or quantity of a firearm or ammunition is without merit, a prejudicial justification as a means of placing limits on ownership.
Each vehicle has a purpose, from a small electric car in a congested town to a large pickup used to move equipment on a job. The only limits involved in who may purchase one over the other, used or new, are financial in nature. A small caliber derringer is equivalent to the small electric car, a shotgun an equivalent to the pickup. Some vehicles will hold more people, some are better suited to driving in rough terrain, yet each has a need and purpose that is not questioned by the general public.
Should individuals be restricted to only one vehicle? One piece of lawn equipment? One pair of shoes?
The restrictions placed on each is based on finances, and perhaps storage area. The requirement to license a vehicle is restricted only to its public use – put it on the highway to interact with other vehicles, it must be licensed or permitted in some manner. Farm and construction equipment generally get a pass for short distances, especially if followed by another vehicle with flashing lights. But dirt bikes are often seen running along the grassy areas next to a highway, traversing across residential streets that cross a greenbelt, or running down county roads. The same can be said for ATV’s or dune buggies. No license requirements on the drivers or the vehicles who are skirting the law, yet no public outrage or new restrictive legislation.
The idea of placing limits on the quantities or types of vehicles any one person or business may purchase is illogical – basically met with “that’s none of your business what I do with my money.” There are no limits on who may purchase, reports detailing multiple vehicle purchases at any one time, no restrictions on purchasing for someone who is unlicensed, and no governmental reporting requirements for the dealer. Straw purchases on vehicles are not questioned – purchasing a vehicle by someone who cannot drive is not questioned, nor is it prohibited.
Therefore, restricted only by finances and storage issues, an individual may own an economy car for daily driving, a sports car for nights out on the town, a pickup for weekend repair materials, a four-wheel drive for inclement weather, a van for the big vacation road trip, a motorcycle for an occasional ride and a larger touring bike for traveling in tandem. Each vehicle has a gas tank, which is only limited by the weight restrictions imposed by the manufacturer. All would require the need to be licensed for use on public roadways, but the individual could also own one of each type for each member of the family, an act that may seem eccentric but never questioned by the general public.
In addition to all the licensed vehicles, the individual may also desire to own a dune buggy for jaunts on the beach, a race car for an occasional need for speed, as well as any number of the previously discussed off-road vehicles. Also, those off-road vehicles could include trucks and cars commonly used on public highways, yet would require no need for licensing if used exclusively on private property.
Relating my examples to firearms, a .22 derringer is a Smart car, a 9mm semi-auto designed for concealed carry the daily driver, a pearl handled nickel plated 1911 the sports car, a hunting rifle or double-barrel shotgun the weekend pickup, an AR-15 used when hunting hogs is the four-wheel drive, a pump shotgun the van, an LCP the motorcycle and the LC380 the touring bike. As for extended magazines, many vans and pickups have secondary gas tanks, and individuals have been known to carry a gas can in the car trunk or bed of the pickup as a backup.
Therefore, just as the reason to justify the carrying of a gas can, jumper cables, or gallon of water in vehicles is dependent upon the needs and desires of the individual driver, the argument of whether or not an individual needs an extended magazine, three pistols instead of one, or a sporting rifle for home defense is not a subject that should be open to discussion by the uninformed. It is based on an individual’s rights and needs, not a public debate on perceived needs by the firearms owner. Or public fears of those who chose self-defense over waiting for law enforcement to arrive after the crime has occurred.
Ultimately, the determination of the needs of the firearms owner should not be debated in the public arena. Certainly not by those who have no knowledge, understanding or experience in firearms and their use.
On another note, this is the third in a series of articles dissecting the analogies and arguments used by the gun control community. Posted in this arena, they are singing to the crowd. However, I ask each reader to take these articles outside of this medium and share it with others who may learn more – share them with those who fear guns or gun owners, those who trust law enforcement to protect them without reserve, those who trust the government to write legislation controlling all aspects of their lives.
There are other articles in the works, but if you feel there are other analogies, other topics I could dissect and debunk in a similar fashion, please contact me here in the comments below or on Facebook – Mary “Dynk” McDonald. Analogies are my specialty, appearing frequently in my fictional works.
About Mary “Dynk” McDonald
Mary “Dynk” McDonald is the author of “Concealed” and the “Heartstrings Legacy” series of books. At this time, Concealed is the only novel about women’s con-cealed carry. A Girls, God, and Guns story, it is the embodiment of the strength of the Second Amendment. Concealed is available in paperback as well as in ebook formats for Kindle and Kobo readers. Heartstrings Legacy — Choices Made is available on Kindle. The next book in the series is in edit.
Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/05/limiting-firearms-ownership-is-a-baseless-argument/#ixzz33FPU6b2R
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
2 thoughts on “Limiting Firearms Ownership Is A Baseless Argument”
All good points but it would have been a more fun read on weed.
Been my nemesis all week.