Caving on Bump Stocks Will Undermine the Second Amendment, Not Save It

Here’s an example of impractical philosophical pragmatism:

The Trump administration on Tuesday took first steps to ban the sale of bump stocks on semi-automatic weapons and has made them illegal to possess beginning in late March.

The regulation will go into effect 90 days after it is formally published in the Federal Register, which is expected to happen on Friday, a Justice Department official said.

People who own bump stocks will be required to either surrender them to the ATF or destroy them by late March, the official said. The change has undergone a legal review and the Justice Department and ATF are ready to fight any legal challenge that may be brought, the official added. [Source: Fox News 12-18-18]

A lot of people who oppose gun control, including President Trump, think it’s reasonable to do this.

But think about what such a regulation implies.

It implies that the individual does not have the final say on how to defend himself. The government does.

It implies that the government may outlaw any weapons or means of self-defense used illegally and irrationally by a killer — even if the weapons are in the hands of the innocent, non-violent majority.

It implies that if the government does not think you need a particular means of self-defense or ammunition, then the government may take it away from you, in spite of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.

If all of these assumptions are true, then why do we have a Second Amendment?

These are the precise assumptions of those who seek to ignore or abolish the Second Amendment.

Banning the sale of bump stocks is a complete cave — an illogical and contradictory concession by the Trump administration in favor of gun-ban proponents.

I understand that leftist gun control advocates wish to ignore, or even abolish, the Second Amendment. I expect them to believe these things. But how do these beliefs square with the assumptions of a person who upholds the Second Amendment?

It’s called philosophical pragmatism. Philosophical pragmatism means, “I hold something as a principle, until I don’t.”

The left, including opponents of the Second Amendment, suffer from no such pragmatism. Democrats and leftists suffer from no pragmatism at all, not even about the First and Second Amendments. Not any longer. They have gone full Communist on us.

I wish the same absence of concessions could be found on the right. If you’re wondering why Republicans, conservatives, Second Amendment advocates and other advocates of liberty, individual rights and freedom keep losing the war, pragmatism is the reason.

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1, and see “Michael Hurd” on MeWe.