| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some Op-Ed Nonsense |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gregory Morris, 8/7/07 8:21:15 am |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This time in the St. Pete Times.
At first I thought it was gonna be one of those "liberal who is OK with guns" stories, because she starts out: "I'm not pro-National Rifle Association, and I am not arguing the basic right-to-bear-arms issue." Of course, if you keep reading, you'll know that indeed she's not only "not pro-NRA", but fiercely anti. And she doesn't even realize that she is indeed arguing about the "basic right-to-bear-arms."
Here's some PSH (TM Say Uncle):"If people don't have high-powered weapons, they won't be able to inflict such carnage on unsuspecting, law-abiding citizens."
It really bothers me when someone who clearly knows nothing about firearms writes this trite nonsense. She doesn't realize that to keep criminals from having the capability to lay down that kind of firepower, we'd have to outlaw all semi-autos, as well as speed-loaders for revolvers... Or, I dunno, allow law-abiding citizens to arm themselves...
"Do you think Thomas Jefferson knew of the technological advances in firearms..." Do you think he knew about the technological advances regarding free speech (radio, tv, internet)? Our founding fathers were clever, in that they assembled a "living document" to define the framework of our nation, which adapts quite well to the realities of any age. Modern mediums for free speech are only one example of this truth.
"Pass a test; drive a car. Pass a screening; buy a gun." Clearly you don't know the law. You have to pass a screening to buy a gun. Cho arguably wasn't legally allowed to buy a gun, but it was the that system failed, not the law.
"My proposal is to regulate all firearms incorporating the same process currently used to purchase Class III weapons." Wow, see now she's pulling out a term she probably read about on the interwebs just before writing this letter. What her proposal would do is make legal firearms ownership too expensive for all but the most wealthy. She may not realize this, but when you look at it closely, Class III registration and taxation is giving the predominantly white upper-class a distinct advantage over the less well-to-do in regard to self defense. Regardless, a national gun registry clearly would not stop criminals, and worse, it will cost us tax payers more. Take a look at Canada's failed gun registry... how many millions of dollars were thrown into that pit, and for what?
I applaud Congresswoman Brown-Waite's stance on this issue. More gun control won't stop crime. The VT campus was already a gun-free zone. The killer was already a prohibited person. We need to patch up any loopholes in the background check system, which may stop some (but clearly not all) illegal gun purchases. More importantly, we need to put violent criminals in jail and keep them there. That wouldn't have helped at VT, but it could have stopped hundreds of other violent crimes. Finally, intentional disarming of law-abiding citizens does not help stop crime, and in fact may do the opposite. I won't speculate of what "might have happened", but I will say that when you take away people's best means of self-defense, don't be so surprised when there is a mass killing.
Update: It looks like Cathy may have been involved in the set design for a local theater production of "Annie Get Your Gun". Just a cute little bit of pseudo-irony. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | [Comments are closed after a month.] |
| | < "Geeks and Guns" | | "Aww Man." > |
|
|
|
|
