Public murders committed with guns are used to try to drive gun policy, even though gun policy is powerless to prevent them.This makes perfect sense once you realize that the political class isn't interested in protecting the public from armed criminals (which it knows is well-nigh impossible). It is interested in protecting itself from an armed citizenry.
Saturday, January 02, 2016
FYI …
… 2015: The Year in Gun Politics - Hit & Run : Reason.com.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In the words of Orval Faubus, "The Feds have got The Bomb." I don't really see what the political classes--which are who? voters?--have to fear from the putative well-regulated militia.
ReplyDeleteA member or two of the armed citizenry ran out of an alley a couple of doors down. The definitely armed one put a gun to one neighbor's head and took his wallet. The possibly armed one, forcibly took a purse from another. Now, none of my neighbors have any particular grudge against firearms. The fellow stuck up served in the US Army when he was young. The husband of the woman robbed served in the military of his native country. But when an SOB runs up from ambush, what could personal, open/concealed carry do? It is not impossible, were sale and registration of firearms better managed, that the dirtbags might have had to do without.
I think the citizenry has much to fear from the political class. The idea that there is legislative way of preventing bad things from happening with guns, in a country that already has tens of millions of them (at least) in circulation, is a fantasy. Moreover, like it or not, the Constitution grants citizens the right to bear arms, declaring that such right not be infringed. That is the law of the land.
ReplyDelete