Chipping Away at Our Freedoms and Offering Nothing in Return

“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.”

Western Washington is reeling at the deaths of six law enforcement officers in just under two months: Officer Timothy Brenton, Sergeant Mark Renninger, Officer Ronald Owens, Officer Tina Griswold, Officer Greg Richards, and earlier this week, Deputy Sheriff Kent Mundell.

With a lightning quick response – Rahm Emmanuel would be proud – supporters of the Aaron Sullivan Public Safety and Police Protection Bill are using one of the deaths, Brenton’s, to justify the legislation, which would ban the sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons.”

The bill is sponsored by Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina; Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle; and Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle. “The ban would cover semiautomatics designed for military use that are capable of rapid-fire and can hold more than 10 rounds. Semiautomatics designed for sporting or hunting purposes wouldn’t be banned.”

This is the type of empty gesture of which the left is so enamored. It gives the appearance that the sponsors are “tough on crime” yet does nothing to actually stop criminals from acquiring such weapons, nothing to actually increase public safety…while at the same time seriously infringing on the right of honest citizens to keep and bear the arms of their choice.

Yet Kohl-Welles doesn’t believe the ban would be unconstitutional.

She also said she doesn’t believe such a ban would violate the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. “Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?” she asked.

Whether or not the “framers of the Constitution” envisioned semi-automatic weapons has no bearing on the advisability of the current legislation. Rep. Kohl-Wells should re-read the 2nd Amendment and try to understand the thinking behind it. The 2nd Amendment wasn’t written to protect the rights of hunters and sportsmen; it was written to protect the “the security of a free state.” Consequently, it should be assumed that the author envisioned the citizens being well armed according to the standard of the day.

I believe that Hunter, Kline and Kohl-Welles are well-intentioned, albeit dangerously misguided. Here is the simple and rather obvious point that they are missing: You can never make enough laws to guarantee good behavior from people who are willing to break the law. You can, however make so many laws that the rights and freedoms we cherish are gradually eroded until…they are…no more.