Can you imagine playing a game in which the rules are always changing? #GunRights

Opinion

If you read the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes, you're familiar with Calvinball. It's a game in which a young child changes the rules to favor his chances of winning regardless of what happens.

Now imagine life were like that. Imagine the frustration of teenagers returning home and being punished because parents changed the curfew without telling them. Imagine the frustration of waiting for delivery of a product or service you ordered and paid for only to learn that the terms of the contract changed without notice. Imagine the frustration of being jailed because the law you obeyed no longer applies and it's been replaced by a new version.

Thankfully, we don't have that problem. We live in a world ruled by laws and precedent. Statutory laws apply until changed and you can't be held accountable for changes made after you've done something relying on them. It's call ex post facto – a law that changes after the fact/act. You're only judged by the law in force at the time you acted. In cases where there is not written law, we rely on precedent – stare decisis.

We don't change laws easily. Precedent is even harder to change. Thank God. We need laws we can depend upon. However, sometimes laws must change. We discover a mistake has been made, we need to fix it. We fixed slavery. We fixed women's suffrage. We fixed Civil Rights. It wasn't easy, but that's okay. It shouldn't be easy to change. There may be a very good reason for a law that we're just not seeing. We need to take our time.

Interestingly, none of those examples – slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights – were errors in the Constitution. None of them were constitutionally mandated. They were cultural standards passed down from other cultures.
Speaking of the Constitution, that's the hardest to change of all. A super majority of Congress must agree to even initiate the process and then three-quarters of the states must concur. Alternatively, the states themselves can initiate the change, but even then it takes three-quarters of them in agreement.
Now come a certain hysterical mass attempting to play Calvinball with the law. They want to alter laws relating to one of the most fundamental human rights, the right to defend oneself. They keep going after guns even though guns are not the problem.

Despite the evidence that guns aren't the problem, they've attempted to change it countless times and failed. Now they alter its application by creating new interpretations of the wording of the law. Why? Can they not see the consequences, the unintended consequences of their meddling. There's plenty of historical precedent.

Every 20th Century tyrant began by denying their people the right of self protection. Hitler. Stalin. Mao Zedong. They disarmed their people and then murdered them by the millions. More than one hundred million of their own citizens were murdered.

Other nations have similarly disarmed their citizens without murdering them. Great Britain. Australia. Sadly they've made them victims of other tyrants, criminals who murder them. And, as refugees pour across their borders, their citizens are falling prey to a new predator that wants to alter their culture to mirror the lands they escaped.
​
That's what happens when you play Calvinball...