Wednesday, April 22, 2009

In A Nutshell

Absolutely outstanding comment from The Volokh Conspiracy:

I'm not a gun owner currently. Used to have a .22 as a kid - quite some time ago.

It's pretty clear to an honest observer that the real end goal of anti-gun folks is to remove all guns from private hands (although of course criminals will still have them).

This has already happened in Great Britain(and only the criminals have guns). They are working on "dangerous" knives now.

All of the skirmishing - "assault weapons", handgun bans, ammunition marking, registration, DC rules that you have to keep your gun in non-operating order - are just incremental means to an end.

If the "anti-gun" folks were really serious about reducing gun-related violence, they would support mandatory life sentencing (or the death penalty) for violent felonies. The fact that one never hears them advocate this clarifies at least for me that this is not really their point of concern.

Its hard to conclude - based on the evidence - that the anti-gun lobby is motivated by anything other than a desire to render citizens defenseless and dependent.

This seems like a bad thing to me.

I was also in the didn't care much camp for years. I'm now seriously thinking about getting a CHL now just to exercise the right to do so.

Couldn't have put it better myself!


Crucis said...

When Missouri passed our RTC legislation some years ago, I did exactly that---I got a CCW permit even though I originally had no desire to carry. In fact, I rarely (2-3 a year) carried those first few years. I got the permit solely to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights.

Now, watching KC crime ooze closer, week by week, I carry every time I leave the house. I work at home and I often carry from morning until I go to bed at night.

Even if you think you'll never need a weapon, get a permit. Who knows, maybe you'll have a life changing event and will be happy that you have that legal capability.

mts1 said...

I used to have a mental exercise to "flush the grouse out of the bush" and expose that gun grabbers weren't interested in gun crime as they were into taking away rights.

I'd say let's cut the sentence in half for people who commit crimes with non-firearm weapons. Instead of shooting someone, beat them with a bat, stab with a knife, run them down in a car. If you're decent enough not to shoot, you should get rewarded with less punishment.

I'd point out that gun crimes will be drastically reduced, and yet get a bitter reaction from the gun grabber. Why? Even though gun crime can be reduced, the guns weren't grabbed, so as a plan it's a colossal fail. Busted.