It seems that only around 2,000 people showed up for this past weekend's "million mom march," a demonstration purportedly aimed at urging the renewal of a federal ban on assault weapons. It would be foolish to think that this group is so limited in their activism - a quick look at their webpage reveals that they're really about banning alll guns.

"Posted by Connie (FL): How many people must die before the distribution of guns is brought under control? "

Posted by Kay (0):
"Why I march. Because we are victims of a minority of the society that has confused a questionable right of every individual to own a gun with the right of all citizens to live, work or attend school without fear of gun violence"

Let me just say up front that I think it's really funny when people who have no idea what they're talking about start making constitutional arguments. Let's take a look at the two "rights" cited by Kay: 1) the right to bear arms. enumerated. 2nd amendment. 2) the "right to live, work, or attend school without fear of gun violence." This one isn't in the constitution, Kay. It's not an enumerated right, Kay. So, right off the bat, you called the wrong one "questionable."

I suppose that one could come up with a crafty argument to hang a general "right to not be exposed to violence" on the 4th or 9th amendments, or maybe on the Due Process Clause of the 5th. But that's beside the point. What strikes me as particularly ridiculous about Kay's statement is that she is alleging that she has a right to not be afraid.

I can't believe that there is an affirmative duty to prevent people from bein scared. Fear is a very subjective thing, and it's often perceived where there is no actual danger. For instance, Kay here would probably be afraid to walk down 14th Street alone, but I'm not afraid to do the same. Have Kay's rights been infringed upon simply because she is afraid? No, not at all.

I don't know much about this assault weapons ban, but from the article I gathered that it is set to expire in September. If it does expire, and if the "violence rate" remains unchanged, will Kay concede that the ban accomplished nothing at all? Probably not. People like Kay never admit when they're wrong.