Much has been said, past and present, about the fight for gun rights. Everyone has their own individual belief, and measure, of what is acceptable in the way of legislative attempts at the federal and state level to control access to firearms. I do not, and will not, speak for the "gun community" at large. That isn't my place, and to try to do so would undermine the individuality of all of the firearm owners and 2nd Amendment advocates in this grand experiment we call America.
I think to walk everyone through my opinion, let me just start off by saying I fully believe the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is plainly written, self explanatory, and a fundamental restriction on the power of the government...federal and state. Any arguments or tropes about "states rights" completely overlook the fact that the Bill of Rights applies equally to all of us, being a restriction on the power of government. In order to apply equally, it can not be allowed or inferred that a state has the power to ignore those parts of the Constitution it finds troublesome. Yes, I'm looking at New York, California, New Jersey, and many more. Your people are Americans, and though you may have dominion over states matters, that does not extend to denying people their fundamental rights because they live on one side of an imaginary line. We wouldn't tolerate African Americans or women having their right to vote restricted by a state, why firearm ownership?
The right of THE PEOPLE the KEEP and BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed. No shortness of barrel or volume of fire exempts any arms from this verbiage. No part of it grants bureaucrats sitting in any state or federal body the power to hold sway or dictate over who is permitted to have arms. The amendment was written by men who JUST FINISHED fighting against their government for their independence, and I have more that a little trouble believing they intended to force us to ask King George for permission to have the means to overthrow him. To say otherwise is willful ignorance, or blatant dishonesty.
Now, maybe I'm the extremist. Admittedly, I happily admit I am a "Rocket launchers and crew served weapons" 2nd Amendment advocate. I'm not mainstream, and I don't want to be. I am an absolutist, and we can agree to disagree if the 'not another inch' line bothers you. I am also a person tired of being told we have to compromise, that we have to be reasonable. I am tired of those of us fighting tooth and nail to see our rights respected be subverted by others within our own community. I am over it all.
"Not another inch" is not a trope, and it isn't something cute to slap on a t-shirt to make a buck or print on a flag to waive around at rallies. It is a statement. It's saying NO. It's saying "being reasonable" does not mean compromising on a fundamental right. And if all of that makes me an extremist, I am at peace with that. What I will not do is advocate, or indulge in, giving one more inch to people that would disarm me in whole or in part.
We've given plenty. It's time to start taking back what's ours. Every freedom, all the time. Period.
Phil Rabalais