Replies

The concept that the government could or should only “allow” certain people to have guns stands the very concept of American jurisprudence on its head. It presumes that the government knows all, controls all, and should be doing so. It is wrong and ineffective.

It is crazy to set up a huge expensive bureaucratic system, require everyone to jump though hoops and prove that they are *not* criminals in order to try, ineffectively, to prevent the few individuals who are not responsible, from having legal access to guns. This is a failed paradigm, and it should be abandoned. To accept the idea that the all gun sales should be monitored by the government, and only allowed to those it deems satisfactory is fundamentally wrong.

The entire idea of the enterprise has always been the death of a thousand cuts, where the restrictions on who can buy, and where, and how and what are continually increased until the number of gun owners is reduced to political insignificance.

"Gun safety advocates"? Well, that's a nice name. Who could be opposed to that?

Saaaaaaay, I have an idea: why don't we create some "Urban safety advocates"? Great concept, huh? Of course, if the goal is the removal of black people from all urban areas, I guess some folks might decide that it's not a good idea, a just idea, or a Constitutuional idea. But, hey, with a name like "urban safety advocates" I'm sure we'll get support.

Excellent post, Mark.

Exactly what part of the Second Amendment do they not understand?

I especially loved the line about "how little we are doing to stop dangerous people from buying deadly weapons." Who, exactly, gets to define dangerous? (Deadly weapons is a whole 'nother story. Ask experienced correctional officers sometime about just what can constitute a deadly weapon).

There are people who would define anyone who is willing to own a gun, anyone who is willing to learn to shoot a gun, and certainly anyone who is willing to carry a gun, as "dangerous" and a probable nutcase who is liable to explode into violence at any time for any reason.

Some of these same people will also include on their list of "dangerous people" anyone who supports the TEA Party, likes Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann, listens to Rush or Mark Levin, reads conservative websites, votes for or contributes to conservative candidates, is a practicing Christian, or any combination of the aforementioned.

I'm not willing to concede the ability to define "dangerous" to just about anyone willing to make that decision, myself.

We respect guns, gun owners, and the Second Amendment...
Oh, please, give me a break! If that statement were even remotely true then there wouldn't be a need to have a "conversation" and there wouldn't have been a 20+ year effort at gun control.
Newsweak and gun grabbers need some new spin and that "gun-safety" dog don't hunt.

Can’t find the link, but there was a great post recently about a Second Amendment advocate who responded succinctly to a lib weasle asking for a summary of his views: “If you try to take my guns, I will kill you.” It’s just that simple for a heck of a lot of us. Gun registration or confiscation laws/orders would trigger the next civil war, which they will loose if these fools persist.