By Rusty Humprhies
TRN Nationally Syndicated Radio Host
As America wades into the mud and discusses the politics surrounding firearms and Second Amendment issues, people are frequently using the terms “mental health” and “mentally ill.” Typically, they are referring to those who are deranged, someone who might murder another because of their mental instability.
But today, I would like to discuss another kind of mental issue- delusion. Delusion is a break from reality, a belief in something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. More specifically, I would like to discuss the delusions of lawmakers.
Sure, I’m concerned about whackos getting their hands on firearms. But I would be less than honest if I claimed that I wasn’t also concerned about the whackos that are looking to infringe upon our rights to individual ownership, all the while claiming that they are not.
I once heard a phrase uttered by a southern gentleman who said something I’ll never forget; he said (and I’m cleaning it up a tad), “Don’t pee on my boots and tell me it’s rain.” And while his down-home phrase is colorful, it’s also appropriate for this occasion. Lawmakers are trying everything they can think of to infringe upon our rights, but telling us they’re not “infringements,” they’re “common sense restrictions.” They are reaching for our guns- all the while insisting that “nobody’s trying to infringe upon your rights.”
Like I said, it’s a complete break from reality- they’re delusional.
So, let’s just look at the facts. Lawmakers are looking to outright ban the ownership of certain weapons they call “assault weapons.” However, their system has no real rhyme or reason. Guns on the list to be banned are banned because they’re “assault weapons.” They’re “assault weapons” because they’re on the list. Does anyone see the circular reasoning here?
But no- they’re not looking to “infringe” upon our right… just “redefine” it.
They are looking to ban “high-capacity” magazines. What’s a “high-capacity” magazine, you ask? It is what they say it is. In New York, it’s 8 rounds. On a federal level, it’s 11 rounds.
To understand how little effect a magazine ban has on a mass shooting, one must only look to the 1966 massacre at the University of Texas in Austin. Charles Whitman, a man with malice and evil in his heart, shot 48 people, killing 16. His weapon was a Remington 700 bolt-action rifle that held 5 rounds.
But despite all of the blustering by politicians, nobody has attempted to explain what will keep a gunman from saying on the eve of his mass murdering spree, “Gee, I wish I had a thirty round magazine. Oh well, I guess I’ll just have to use three ten-round magazines to get the job done.”
I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t feel any safer knowing that a gunman would feel inconvenienced by having to change out his magazines. You know what would help in that situation? A well-trained person with a concealed weapon. But as gun-grabbers crusade for stricter laws, they also crusade against the right of good citizens to gain access to useful firearms and work to diminish legal access to concealed carry permits.
But no- they’re not looking to “infringe” upon our right… just institute “common sense” restrictions.
The most frustrating thing about the rhetoric coming from Washington and various state leaders is that they are not even claiming that their solutions are good solutions. While gun rights activists push back and declare that they will not be disarmed, the message from the Beltway is, “Well, we’ve got to do something… you know- for the children.” And while I agree that gun violence is a serious issue, throwing the Constitution under the bus should not be the first thing tried.
You just don’t see that kind of extreme thought process in the real world, do you? “Well, my house was dirty, and I had to do something, so I burned it down. And now the problem is solved; I have no more clutter or dirty dishes.” Bravo.
For those who are unfamiliar with the exact phrasing of the Second Amendment, allow me to provide you with the Amendment that is remarkably poignant in its brevity:
“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.”
Write it down or memorize it and note that while our founders expressed that this is a right to be left alone, know that on Tuesday, as Vice President Biden tried to rally the House Democrats at their retreat in Virginia, he claimed, “It is clearly within the right of the government to determine what type of weapons can be owned by the public.”
But no- they’re not looking to “infringe” upon our right… they just “clearly” hold the right to decide what types of weapons the public can retain.
Rusty Humphries is a nationally syndicated radio host heard across the USA on over 300 radio stations and is listed as the 6th largest radio audience by Talkers Magazine. He is also a regular contributor to TPNN.com.