So I read the article and your comments and I'm still confused as to why they are looking to restrict peoples rights? I see references to "why are you special" "how to restrict" I don't see why they want to do this. I don't see any reference to danger, just a willingness to take peoples rights away. Am I supposed to assume a reason? I don't automatically accept "the new normal" of restriction just because they want to.
They know that posting a sign on a door is not going to stop a lunatic from shooting the place up just as surely as they know that a woman getting a piece of paper against an estranged lover will not keep her safe. Police logs and news reports are filled with incidents of violence; yet they claim we don't need to carry weapons. "That's what the police are for" even though they know that the police are under no obligation to protect anyone.
- They know that three 10 round magazines have the same capacity as one 30 round magazine.
- They know that a bayonet lug doesn't make a rifle more dangerous.
- They know that you can't realistically shoot down an airplane with a rifle, even a .50 BMG
- They know that real, honest-to-goodness fully automatic weapons are very heavily regulated and are used in crimes so infrequently as to be statistically meaningless.
Knowing these things, then, makes the anti-rights crowd suspect. Why do they want to restrict what kind of magazines I can buy, or where I can carry my firearm? After nearly 20 years of being a permit holder and gun owner, I still haven't shot anyone over a parking space - how many more years must I, and hundreds of thousands like me, carry before they stop the nonsense? People that take the trouble to get the permit to carry are not the problem. They've never been the problem.
In fact, there's a damn good argument to be made that there's not even a problem to be had that banning guns in [insert public place] can solve.
So why do they do it? That's the crux of Chris's question. Why do the anti-rights folks push for gun bans and such when they know it's not going to work? Are they delusional? Do they think that they and they alone can succeed where, for thousands of years, people have failed? Merely by making [action/item/etc.] illegal that it will disappear? Or is it more insidious, and the term "anti-rights" is the correct one?
Is it that they view an individual with a permit to carry as a threat to the monopoly of force they would prefer the state enjoy? It explains their opposition to concealed carry as well as the idea behind so-called "assault weapons" bans - and the current state of heavily regulated and slowly dwindling supply of machine guns. They want the state to be the only entity that can employ force - their reasons for this are known only to themselves, but there can be no good outcome when only the agents of the state have arms.
As Alan says, there's a term for countries where only the police are armed: Police state.
That is all.