EDITORIAL: No hope for gun grabbers

[HardHatMan]

Nice little write up.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/1/no-hope-for-gun-grabbers/

 

[DieselDent]

Good article

 

[cbrenner]

Very nice!

 

[MDFF2008]

In Arizona, where laws are already gun-friendly, the House last week endorsed a proposal that would prevent overzealous homeowners associations from denying residents their constitutionally protected right to own firearms. The legislature’s Democratic and Republican caucuses likewise support a Senate bill that would prevent university administrators from denying students with concealed carry permits from bringing weapons on campus.

This is powerful statement in bold.

 

[WeaponsCollector]

Gun grabbers should have realized they lost back in the mid 1990's. Then again accepting reality is not something they are known for.

 

[sskijr]

Gun grabbers should have realized they lost back in the mid 1990's. Then again accepting reality is not something they are known for.

Case in point:The Wisconsin Democratic State Senators "running away" to Illinois.

 

[Brychan]

Isn't nice that MD doesn't give up so easily

 

[jonnyl]

Good article! I don't understand why some of the prominent pro-gun democrats don't say to the rest of the deems "look gun control is not an issue by itself, we've had it as part of our platform as a tool to reduce crime. We've seen the evidence that restrictions on law abiding citizens have no impact on crime, and just as importantly allowing widespread freedom doesn't increase crime either. The evidence is strong enough that continuing to cling to it is making us look foolish. If we care about reducing crime and violence we need to change our focus "

Now they're just being petty and stubborn.

 

[unclenunzie]

Good article! I don't understand why some of the prominent pro-gun democrats don't say to the rest of the deems "look gun control is not an issue by itself, we've had it as part of our platform as a tool to reduce crime. We've seen the evidence that restrictions on law abiding citizens have no impact on crime, and just as importantly allowing widespread freedom doesn't increase crime either. The evidence is strong enough that continuing to cling to it is making us look foolish. If we care about reducing crime and violence we need to change our focus "

Now they're just being petty and stubborn.

They probably have said this or something like it, over and over. Appeals to logic and evidence could sway the intellect, but the recipient has to accept them, free of emotional baggage or mental block.

Its very frustrating dealing with people who's capacity for reason, while otherwise normal, would on this one issue become distorted. Absent the emotional shock of being victimized, such minds are unlikely to change.

 

[weeman]

What I didn't like was that as usual they talked about how the NRA is making this happen. They even mention Heller and McDonald with no mention of SAF.

 

[jonnyl]

They probably have said this or something like it, over and over. Appeals to logic and evidence could sway the intellect, but the recipient has to accept them, free of emotional baggage or mental block.

Its very frustrating dealing with people who's capacity for reason, while otherwise normal, would on this one issue become distorted. Absent the emotional shock of being victimized, such minds are unlikely to change.

I don't know. Whenever I hear politicians talking against gun control, thy always seem to talk about "preserving rights", or "not infringing", sometimes a generic "it doesn't work", but no facts.

Not infringing is great, but it doesn't convince someone if they believe they're being asked to trade safety for a right that they don't really care about. I rarely hear politicians point out that "You are NOT less safe, when good guys have guns".

I know you're right about some (a lot) of people not being convincible, I'd just like to see it pointed out to them more often that their premise is wrong.

Edit: I reread my post. I don't want to give the impression I'm in favor of an "interest balancing approach" to gun control. I'm not. But if someone arguing for gun control is using interest balancing as their reason and those facts are wrong I think they should be corrected. I'm discussing convincing people to see the light. Not arguing for the courts.

 

[EL1227]

Beware of a trojan horse ...

Gun-grabbing may be on the wane, but taxing firearms and ammo 'because we need the revenue' is ALWAYS a possiblity.

Don't trust a politician to make a sound decision when there is money involved.

 

[cbrenner]

Gun-grabbing may be on the wane, but taxing firearms and ammo 'because we need the revenue' is ALWAYS a possiblity.

Don't trust a politician to make a sound decision when there is money involved.

+1000

 

[Patrick]

Gun-grabbing may be on the wane, but taxing firearms and ammo 'because we need the revenue' is ALWAYS a possiblity.

Don't trust a politician to make a sound decision when there is money involved.

Agreed. But in our favor, special newspaper taxes were ruled illegal a long time ago on 1A grounds. I also see the excise taxes on firearms falling to the wayside eventually. Maybe 5-6 years from now?

The manufacturing industry has got to be watching. They will be all over this as soon as the NRA says "go". I bet some are just barely holding off right now.