My latest column is up at Right Wing News!
Here is an excerpt:
One of the most frustrating thing about the current debate on gun control is the obfuscation and lies that are constantly passed around by the Left. The very idea that the Second Amendment might just be about self-defense, home-defense, hunting, and sport shooting is absolutely ludicrous, yet arguments based on this premise are treated as valid. We are constantly told, from a variety of sources, that law-abiding American citizens don’t “need” AR-15 rifles. We are told that we don’t “need” 30-round magazines. We are told that all we really “need” in magazine capacity is seven rounds, or six rounds, or two rounds. Some have even made the ridiculous argument that the Second Amendment only applies to the muzzle-loading single-shot smooth-bore muskets that existed at the time of the Second Amendment’s writing. Anyone making such an argument should be dismissed out-of-hand; there is no logical justification for that line of thinking…yet for some reason, those anti-logical perspectives are treated as serious contributions in the gun control debate.
I took the opportunity yesterday to explain just why the “need” argument is ridiculous – if you examine the reasons behind the Second Amendment, it becomes exceedingly clear why law-abiding American civilians really do need AR-15 rifles, and why 30-round magazines can be an important element in ensuring that America continues to be a free country, and why elected officials and government bureaucrats do not have the right to define what kind of firearms or firearm accessories the people do or don’t “need.”
But then I got to thinking: here we are in the midst of two great political debates: the debate over gun control, and the debate over budget sequestration. And then it hit me: what if, instead of talking about what firearms the American people may or may not “need,” we were to apply the “need” argument to the federal budget?
Continue reading here.