Follow the Logic on Obama's Gun Control

"While there is no law, or set of laws, that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil, if there’s even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try," Obama said in his rollout of his gun control proposals. However, laws restricting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens should be enacted anyway because they might save "even one life," according to Obama.


So, Obama wants a ban on scary-looking guns, so-called "assault weapons" (which are not true assault weapons because he shot requires a trigger pull). He wants a limit on the capacity of gun clips to ten bullets as well as universal background checks. He admitted these measures, had they been in effect, might not have prevented the Newtown, Columbine or Aurora tragedies. He ignored the fact that the weapon used in Newtown was legally owned by the shooter's mother in a state with an assault weapon ban. The national assault rifle and magazine capacity limitations were in effect at the time of the Columbine High School shootings. The Aurora shooter would have passed a background check since he had no criminal record and had never been adjudicated as mentally incompetent before the theater shooting.

Okay, so let's apply Obama's same logic to another right -- the First Amendment -- and see how far it flies with the liberal gun-hating crowd. Let's address violent video games and movies. Granted, researchers differ on whether or not these cause increased violence or aggression. But, since they might for at least some mentally ill individuals, we should go after them because we might be able to save at least one life.

Let's just outright ban the production and sale of the most graphic, scariest violent video games or movies. Nobody to see them to be entertained; they serve no useful purpose. Let's require background checks on all purchases of permitted video games and movie DVD's or Blu-Rays, including any transfers from one owner to another. And, certainly, we need to restrict the length of such games or movies. Let's issue movie attendance licenses to be allowed to buy violent movie tickets after a thorough background check. Of course, we would need to restrict television viewing of these movies, too, so let's require cable companies to do background checks of their customers. Then, require the cable companies to restrict violent shows to certain stations and only customers who passed the background checks could subscribe to those stations.

Sure, these measures restrict the free exercise of the First Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. But, if we could save just one life by enacting them, wouldn't it be worth it? If it isn't, then neither is it reasonable or right to restrict the free exercise of our Second Amendment rights. What is fair for one is fair for the other.