A broad coalition of 2nd Amendment defenders sued the state of California in response to a law that Governor Newsom signed in July banning Glock-style pistols that can be illegally converted into fully automatic firearms. Assembly member Jesse Gabriel claimed that “Automatic weapons are exceptionally lethal […], (which) are illegal in California.” As this coalition stands up against California the question is being raised, is this exaggeration of gun protectors, who are standing up against California really needed? Isn’t a ban on illegally convertible firearms, something positive where everybody can benefit from?
From my perspective, this is a sign of negligent behavior. People know that lethal weapons should not be legal and should be restricted. Furthermore, the benefits of a ban on illegally convertible weapons is so self-evident that I don’t understand why people would denigrate it.
Unfortunately some semiautomatic weapons feature trigger bars known as crucifixes, allowing them to be converted into full automatic weapons according to the Independent. The department of ATF further also recorded a 570% increase in confiscated illegally converted firearms, between 2017 and 2021.
The plaintiffs are accusing California of seeking to “disarm law-abiding citizens”, consisting of the National Rifle Association, the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation and Poway Weapons & Gear according to Fox News. John Commerford from the NRA, is further debasing California’s aim: “Newsom and his gang of progressive politicians in California are continuing their crusade against constitutional rights,”, Commerford said.
In the year 2024 more than 31.000 injuries occurred in gun-related crimes in the US, with numbers dropping, since the corona high of more than 40.000 injuries back in 2021, going back to Precorona Niveau according to the GVA. Based on these numbers it is self-evident for some to fight against this crime sector of the U.S. by enacting laws and restrictions to make firearms illegal, especially when considering the drastic rise and increase of illegally converted firearms.
From a viewpoint of a German student abroad with no relation to U.S. citizenship, I have no justification to judge American politics. Nevertheless, I am able to share my experiences from a country where legal weapons ownership is highly restricted. I’m under the impression that American citizens have been exposed more to the concept of weapons and have experienced direct interactions with weapons connected to the idea of patriotism, which indirectly romanticizes the use of guns.
If the use and ownership of lethal firearms would be restricted more, the connection to patriotism, and therefore the romanticizing of those weapons could be lowered in order to achieve a more safe society, from which all America’s inhabitants could benefit from,.
Some 2nd Amendment defenders could argue that the whole United States was built on ideals like freedom and self-governance, therefore justifying the legality of deadly firearms, but when arguing like that you could ask yourself: Does it really mean freedom when thousands of innocent human beings are robbed of their freedom to exist? Or does it really mean self-governance when states are being sued by massive corporations and a coalition that support and make deadly weapons? Gun supports claim that this is “patriotism” while they are debasing politicians who support gun restrictions by claiming they would be attempting to “crusade against constitutional rights.”
Is that really “Freedom”?
