When an opinion piece at Common Dreams.org offering solutions to so-called “gun violence” cites how other countries regulate firearms, it reveals the author(s) must have skipped high school Civics because the United States isn’t like those other countries for one important reason: The Second Amendment.
The article in question headlined “What the US Can Learn From Other Nations About Tackling Our Gun Violence Crisis,” refers, via a link, to the Democrat party platform and to data from the Gun Violence Archive, making everything else in the article suspect.
That it appeared right before the Democratic Party convenes in Chicago might essentially dismiss the whole thing as camo-speak, except for one very important point: This is how Democrats still think about guns and the right to keep and bear arms. Throughout the 843-word piece, one increasingly is impressed that the tenor leans left.
Authors Frances Moore Lappé and Hannah Stokes-Ramos point to Canada as one example to follow. It seems a great idea to them that there is a “ban on civilian ownership of automatic weapons.” They like how Canada regulates handguns by requiring a permit, limiting ownership to gun club members and gun collectors and “anyone demonstrating a need or self-defense purposes.”
Evidently, the authors overlooked the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen ruling, which nullified the “needs” requirement as a violation of the Second Amendment. Likewise, the right to keep and bear arms is hardly restricted to gun club members.
Next, the authors take us to Finland, where gun ownership requires a license and registration, an aptitude test for the license and a minimum age of 20. And, guns “can only be carried for a specific purpose.”
Well, let’s see now. An aptitude test. Isn’t that the equivalent of a literacy test, which was ruled unconstitutional years ago by the Supreme Court?
Because the right to bear arms doesn’t require citizens to provide any reason, much less a “specific purpose,” this suggestion once again runs smack into the Second Amendment.
Then we jump to Norway, where semiautomatic weapons are banned, one needs a license from police “s well as a ‘valid’ reason for obtaining it,” and “self-defense isn’t considered a valid reason.” Oops, again. Bruen, McDonald and Heller—all rulings by the Supreme Court in this century—sort of put the kibosh on the Norwegian approach.
Finally, the authors come to what amounts to a sales pitch for Democrats.
“Since the solution to gun violence goes well beyond addressing mental health,” they write, “let’s begin with the most basic gun reforms advocated by the Democratic Party: strengthening background checks and keeping guns out of the hands of those with a history of violent crime or posing a danger to themselves or others, such as domestic abusers.
“Our upcoming national election offers a great opportunity to highlight these crucial steps for public safety,” they observe, “as the Democratic candidate for vice-president°—Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz—became a gun-control advocate in response to the 2018 Parkland high-school shooting.”
And then they offer a plea for “commonsense gun reforms.” Gun rights activists counter this alarm-bell phrase by noting these are gun controls, not ‘reforms,” and when it comes to “commonsense,” they don’t make any sense at all because they target law-abiding citizens, while criminals continue to ignore the law.
Common Dreams describes itself as a group “powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place.”
For citizens to be informed and engaged should require a full perspective, which includes being advised about the constitutional problems related to any policy suggestions.
But according to Fox News, Democrats can’t even get their own platform text straight.
“The official platform of the Democrat Party was released Saturday and makes several references to a ‘second Biden term’ despite President Biden dropping out of the race a month ago,” the network reported. “On Monday night, the party will vote on the platform that makes 19 references to a second Biden term.”
In one paragraph quoted by Fox, the platform asserts, “In President Biden’s second term, he will continue selecting judges who will protect fundamental rights and who represent the diversity of the American experience.”
Except that the judges selected by Joe Biden haven’t seemed all that keen on protecting the fundamental rights secured by the Second Amendment. If Kamala Harris follows him into the Oval Office, and Democrats retain control of the Senate, many pundits suggest America can expect more of the same.
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
