The Changing Face of Gun Control: More Respectful of Gun Rights, But More Successful?

Molly Ball at the Atlantic chronicles one of the greatest triumphs of the gun rights movement: making the gun control movement ameliorate (or camouflage?) its anti-gun agenda. She notes:

The group now known as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was once known as Handgun Control Inc.; a 2001 book by the executive director of the Violence Policy Center was entitled Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.

Contrast that with what you see today: Gun-control groups don't even use the term "gun control," with its big-government implications, favoring "preventing gun violence" instead. Democratic politicians preface every appeal for reform with a paean to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment and bend over backwards to assure "law-abiding gun owners" they mean them no ill will. Even the president, a Chicago liberal who once derided rural voters' tendency to "cling to guns or religion," seeks to assure gun enthusiasts he's one of them by citing a heretofore-unknown enthusiasm for skeet shooting...

Many Americans' low opinion of old school gun control advocates was earned:

If the NRA today seems fixated on the notion that the left is out to undercut the Second Amendment, confiscate law-abiding Americans' legally acquired firearms, and instigate federal-government monitoring of all gun owners, that's because 15 years ago, gun-control advocates wanted to do all of those things.

After chronicling some of the ins and outs of intra-anti-gun-group squabbles, and noting that one of their rhetorical tactics is acting all respectful of gun rights, as long as it's for hunting (leaving vulnerable self-defense, the most important aspect of gun ownership, and sheer recreational fun of any sort, the answer to the annoying "Why would any one need.....?" question about any sort of gun or magazine), Ball concludes that in trying to make themselves less scary to those who don't want all private ownership of guns eliminated or made terribly inconvenient, the gun control folk have a better chance of succeeding in regulatory goals that don't involve prying all guns out of people's hands, of whatever temperature or sentience:

The Brady Campaign's president, Dan Gross, [said] "The message is now turned outward instead of inward, focused on engaging and mobilizing the latent majority of the American public that supports common-sense measures like universal background checks." Now, a representative email from a Colorado progressive group to its supporters is headlined, "No one is coming to take your gun."

When I was researching my 2008 book Gun Control on Trial, right after the Heller decision came down, enshrining an individual Second Amendment right to commonly used weapons for self-defense in the home in the "living Constitution" the Courts would actually respect, Dennis Henigan of the Brady Center told me he considered the decision quite a victory for gun controllers.

Why, when his side filed an amicus brief arguing the other side of the case? The gun rights movement, he said, was pretty much running on the fumes of fear of total weapon confiscation. With that off the table thanks to the Court, they could now get down to fights he was sure the gun controllers could win, about the specifics of what sort of people could own what sort of weapon, what they had to tell the government when weapons changed hands, and the particular characteristics of weapons.

I thought he was just trying to put the best available spin on a bad decision for his side, but Ball's article is trying to make the case that a gun control movement that recognizes at least the minimal Heller level version of the Second Amendment will be a more successful one.

But I'm not sure how successful. Shortly before Sandy Hook, an article by me called "Gun Control RIP" appeared in American Conservative, and many correspondents seemed to think I was embarrassed by crummy timing and clearly wrong.

I still think the point the piece made holds, and that American public resistance to reacting even to tragedies caused by people with guns with enough political fervor to turn the gears of gun control forward is still strong. Now it seems even attempts to turn the hands back a decade to something like the "assault weapon" status quo of ten years ago--not exactly an amazing victory of gun control--are likely to fizzle

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Modern Social Liberty||

    And yet we're supposed to believe the NRA is just an innocent little organization trying to defend constitutional rights? This looks exactly like an unregulated lobbying group thwarting a policy agenda in the public interest.

  • tarran||

    Dude, you might actually read the article before commenting. It will prolong the time in takes people to figure out that you are a moron.

  • ||

    You should know better than to talk to our regular idiot trolls when they pick new names. DIPSHIT.

  • Modern Social Liberty||

    Uh, it describes how the jackboots of the gun "rights" movement have used fear and intimidation to undermine efforts of anti-gun violence groups. Not to mention doing what fascists always do in redefining language and blaming minorities for the problem. That's why these efforts to secure our country are always fighting an uphill battle.

    Maybe YOU should read it.

  • Almanian.||

    I know you are, but what am I?

  • ||

    gun "rights" movement

    Ummm pretty sure the 2nd amendment exists.

    Your claim that the other side is redefining language when you put in quotes "rights" of a right found in the constitution is hypocritical and therefor unreliable.

  • ||

    FASCIST

  • Modern Social Liberty||

    It's not an individual right, basic reading of the Constitution makes clear that it's a right for the country to use arms in defending itself from invaders.

    And aren't libertarians always whining about how my right to Medicare or Social Security isn't actually a right despite the law saying it is? And how that right needs to be infringed to protect tax cuts or "lower" debt or whatever else Heritage talking points they've been given that week?

    But another law, that can easily be changed, that when misinterpreted gives them a right to unchecked gun violence suddenly you can't take it away no matter what the human and societal costs!

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Yes...because "the people" in the 2nd Amendment is different from "the people" in the 1st, 4th, and 9th Amendments.

  • Calidissident||

    "It's not an individual right, basic reading of the Constitution makes clear that it's a right for the country to use arms in defending itself from invaders."

    Bullshit. If the term "the people" had the meaning you suggest it does anywhere else in the Bill of Rights, those amendments would make no sense. The second amendment does not say that the right to bear arms is contingent on being in a militia, and in any case, the term "militia" in this context means any male citizen of military age. The people who wrote and ratified the Constitution were explicit in that the Second Amendment referred to the individual right to bear arms. And why exactly would we need an amendment to say that society has the right to resist invasion?

    "And aren't libertarians always whining about how my right to Medicare or Social Security isn't actually a right despite the law saying it is?"

    Libertarians don't think laws determine rights. And the government does not consider SS or Medicare to be a right.

    http://www.cato.org/publicatio.....l-security

    "But another law, that can easily be changed, that when misinterpreted gives them a right to unchecked gun violence suddenly you can't take it away no matter what the human and societal costs!"

    The pro-gun people are not the ones misinterpreting the second amendment. Nor does the second amendment give anyone the right to commit "unchecked gun violence"

  • ||

    It's not an individual right, basic reading of the Constitution makes clear that it's a right for the country to use arms in defending itself from invaders.

    When it specifically refers to the right of the "people", you assertion that it is a "collective" right is laughable. Do you also believe that the rights to peacably assemble and petition the government are rights of the "country" and not individuals?

    And aren't libertarians always whining about how my right to Medicare or Social Security isn't actually a right despite the law saying it is?

    You don't have a right to make other people give you things or pay for things, yes. Nothing to do with this topic, which has nothing to do with making people buy other people guns.

    despite the law saying it is

    And which law, praytell, says these things are a "right"?

    But another law

    Using a different legal basis. We do, you know, have something called a "Constitution".

    But another law, that can easily be changed, that when misinterpreted gives them a right to unchecked gun violence

    Wow, so much stupid argument. Which law are you talking about? Certainly not the 2nd Amendment, which is not "easily changed". That would require a Constitutional Amendment, which is difficult to pass. And as in another comment, murder is already illegal. Ownership of guns /=/ murdering people.

  • General Butt Naked||

    No, maybe YOU should read it!

    HA!

  • benji||

    Enough with the jackboots!

  • Calidissident||

    Anti-gun groups are all about fear and intimidation

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Modern Social Liberty,

    Uh, it describes how the jackboots of the gun "rights" movement have used fear and intimidation to undermine efforts of anti-gun violence groups.


    Yet the threat of making possession of property illegal is not to be taken as intimidating in itself?

    Not to mention doing what fascists always do in redefining language and blaming minorities for the problem.


    You mean back when the KKK wanted gun control to stop gun violence from blacks towards whites?

    Is that what you're talking about? I think you are.

  • Modern Social Liberty||

    Who is proposing making useful personal property illegal?

    Is it "intimidating" when somebody says you can't blow up your neighborhood with a nuclear bomb?

    As for bringing up the KKK, you prove my point. The tea party is the modern KKK and they're constantly having assault weapons and violence show up at their gatherings. Not to mention advocating insurrection against the lawful government.

    Racist nutbags really shouldn't have weapons of mass destruction.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    #TFT

  • Redmanfms||

    A-fucking-men. This one isn't even very good.

  • ||

    Who is proposing making useful personal property illegal?

    Gun control advocates are proposing outlawing ownership of certain types of firearms and magazines. Guns owned before the law passes are to be ignored as long as they aren't sold (though this completely undermines the "point" of the law), but any such guns won't be able to be purchased or sold. Ownership is marked by being able to transfer said ownership. And again, some magazines would be outlawed entirely.

    Is it "intimidating" when somebody says you can't blow up your neighborhood with a nuclear bomb?

    Are nuclear weapons regularly used for self-defense, hunting, and recreation by the average law-abiding citizen?

  • ||

    The tea party is the modern KKK

    Huh, I must have missed all the lynching.

    they're constantly having assault weapons and violence show up at their gatherings.

    Not sure why a group that strongly supports the 2nd Amendment having guns at their meetings is somehow a point against them. As to violence "constantly" showing up, I'll need some evidence and not wild assumption.

    Not to mention advocating insurrection against the lawful government.
  • ||

    Hmm, the rest was cut off. Here it is:

    Not to mention advocating insurrection against the lawful government.
  • ||

    Erg, not again. Let's try one more time:

    Not to mention advocating insurrection against the lawful government.
  • ||

    Not to mention advocating insurrection against the lawful government.
  • ||

    Violating the constitution isn't lawful.

    Racist nutbags

    Ooh, ad-hominem. Very blatant and stupid. Everyone who disagrees with you is racist and crazy. Please, tell me more of your delusions.

    shouldn't have weapons of mass destruction.

    Conflating guns with nuclear weapons. Nice try.

  • Calidissident||

    Yep this guy is clearly part of the KKK

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb523cCtHAI

    "Racist nutbags really shouldn't have weapons of mass destruction."

    I don't think you know what the term "weapons of mass destruction" means. In any case, violent racist nutbags who want to kill people aren't going to care if the gun they're using is illegal. So it makes no sense to disarm their peaceful potential victims

  • Generic Stranger||

    The one guy who showed up to a Tea Party rally with an AR-15 was African-American. Funny how you conveniently left that little fact out.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Modern Social Liberty,

    Who is proposing making useful personal property illegal?


    Anti-gun activists are. Guns are very useful for self-defense, especially if you're slight and not build.

    Is it "intimidating" when somebody says you can't blow up your neighborhood with a nuclear bomb?


    It is intimidating to say that a human right should be taken away.

    As for bringing up the KKK, you prove my point. The tea party is the modern KKK


    You're dwelling in stupidity, M.

    Racist nutbags really shouldn't have weapons of mass destruction.


    Yet the NRA are the intimidating ones...

  • Auric Demonocles||

    TFT man.

  • Almanian.||

    What means TFT? "The Frozen Throne" is Google's fave translation.

    I was thinking Thanks for That or Tame Fuckig Trolls....? Dunno

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Troll Free Thursdays

  • Jordan||

    This looks exactly like an unregulated lobbying group thwarting a policy agenda in the public interest.

    No, it looks like citizens exercising their First Amendment rights. Of course, I know that's another amendment you pro-regressives aren't too keen on.

  • Modern Social Liberty||

    Citizens want an end to gun violence. Every objective poll has shown this in the results over and over again.

    An unelected unaccountable group like the NRA should not get a say in designing rational public policy.

  • ||

    Citizens want an end to gun violence. Every objective poll has shown this in the results over and over again.

    And gun control measures being proposed haven't been shown to do anything to reduce gun violence. The assault weapon ban has no logic behind it, the magazine ban has flawed logic behind it, and the universal background checks are unenforceable.

    An unelected unaccountable group like the NRA should not get a say in designing rational public policy.

    What you're essentially saying is that private citizens shouldn't get to have anything to say in regards to public policy if they're part of a group. Good to know you think the Brady group shouldn't have a thing to say about it either. And calling these proposals "rational" is entirely debatable.

  • Modern Social Liberty||

    That's because the measures haven't been put in place yet! Of course they can't stop gun violence when they're just theoretical.

    The Brady group is acting in the public interest in accord with the public will, they are not using unlimited corporate funds to undermine democracy and impose an extremist far-right agenda on the country.

  • ||

    That's because the measures haven't been put in place yet! Of course they can't stop gun violence when they're just theoretical.

    One of them has in the past, and did nothing. Another one is based on the idea that replacing a magazine in the middle of shooting unarmed people makes a meaningful different. The last is unenforceable.

    The Brady group is acting in the public interest

    According to some and not to others. And that they agree with you doesn't give them some any more right to speak than groups that don't agree with you.

    in accord with the public will

    Which public will? "The public" isn't some entity of it's own, it's just all the people in the U.S., who are of many different minds on the subject. Specific gun control proposals get a variety of polling results based on phrasing, and the phrasings that have gotten the most enthusiastic response are the ones that are most misleading.

  • ||

    they are not using unlimited corporate funds

    Unlimited money? Odd, I was under the impression that only the government had the power to print money. Also, you seem to be under the assumption that simply spending money brainwashes people to believe what they say. Absent this, there's nothing illegitimate about spending money on political ads. And for that matter, are you really claiming that gun control advocates (including many politicians) are all dirt-poor?

    to undermine democracy

    In other words, democracy only wins when the result is what you want. If views you DON'T LIKE prevail through our representative government, it just means DEMOCRACY IS DEAD!

    impose

    I must have forgotten the part where they got rid of our elected representatives.

    an extremist far-right agenda

    Opposing the abrogation of civil rights is "far-right"? If you want to define defense of a Constitutionally-recognized right as "far-right", go ahead. Our Democratic president certainly doesn't care about rights.

  • Calidissident||

    "That's because the measures haven't been put in place yet! Of course they can't stop gun violence when they're just theoretical."

    So then how can you claim they will stop gun violence?

  • Jordan||

    Citizens want an end to gun violence. Every objective poll has shown this in the results over and over again.

    "Wanting an end to gun violence" != "agreeing to whatever bullshit gun control bill Diane Feinstein proposes".

    An unelected unaccountable group like the NRA should not get a say in designing rational public policy.

    Like I said, you don't give a shit about the 1st Amendment either. Fuck off, slaver.

  • marshaul||

    OK, let's see how far you get without your unelected, unaccountable groups like the Brady Bunch.

    Like it or not, yours is the astroturf. Our cause is one of the few which remains truly grassroots.

    And that's why you'll always fail, lobbies or no lobbies.

  • marshaul||

    OK, let's see how far you get without your unelected, unaccountable groups like the Brady Bunch.

    Like it or not, yours is the astroturf. Our cause is one of the few which remains truly grassroots.

    And that's why you'll always fail, lobbies or no lobbies.

  • marshaul||

    OK, let's see how far you get without your unelected, unaccountable groups like the Brady Bunch.

    Like it or not, yours is the astroturf. Our cause is one of the few which remains truly grassroots.

    And that's why you'll always fail, lobbies or no lobbies.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Modern Social Liberty,

    And yet we're supposed to believe the NRA is just an innocent little organization trying to defend constitutional rights?


    Yes, just like the ACLU.

    This looks exactly like an unregulated lobbying group thwarting a policy agenda in the public interest


    Yes, just like the ACLU.

    Next irrational rant, please? You, the dude in pink, on the back?

  • widget||

    I'm not too sure about the NRA either, but 'Modern Social Liberty' is an OK handle for an exotic dancer.

  • Modern Social Liberty||

    It's what I advocate for. The government meeting all our material needs so that we can enjoy true social, moral and emotional liberty.

    It's simple and possible now, the only thing standing in the way is the liberty despising far-right.

  • Jordan||

    Ah, but such a state already exists. Why haven't you moved to North Korea yet? Too much freedom?

  • Modern Social Liberty||

    North Korea is a completely fascist far-right nation, they long ago murdered the resistant democratic left which is what the right always does when it gains power.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I'm calling sockpuppet. Nobody is this stoopid.

  • Calidissident||

    Holy shit - North Korea is a far-right country?

    You had a decent run there, but that clearly exposed you as a troll.

    C+

  • Modern Social Liberty||

    North Korea is anti-democracy, anti-workers, pro-military, anti-environment, anti-liberty, etc.

    Sounds a lot like the Republican Party now that I think about it...

  • widget||

    North Korea is anti-democracy, anti-workers, pro-military, anti-environment, anti-liberty, etc.

    Sounds a lot like the Republican Party now that I think about it...

    So now that you've randomly punched letters on your keyboard and found yourself at a libertarian website would you like to say something?

    I'm not, strictly speaking, a libertarian myself. But I know where I am, do you?

  • marshaul||

    North Korea is anti-democracy, anti-workers, pro-military, anti-environment, anti-liberty, etc.

    Sounds a lot like Obama and the New Left.

  • widget||

    It's what I advocate for.

    So you also think "Modern Social Liberty" is an 'OK' handle for an exotic dancer. Great minds think alike. You, me, and Dave Barry are going to town on this meme.

  • ||

    "Why would any one need.....?"

    Why do I need a 30 round magazine?

    Cuz I might miss the man trying to rob and kill me in my home the first 29 times.

    Note: I do not own a 30 round magazine or a gun that would hold it...still the argument is so easy to counter i am wondering why no one simply answers it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I fucking hope not. You know those first 29 bullets don't just evaporate into a lemon-scented mist when they miss, right?

  • Almanian.||

    Word. Rule #3 or #4 - "Before you shoot, know what's beyond/behind what you shoot at"

  • KWebb||

    They don't turn into lemon-scented mist on the way out of the target either.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Their long term goals are the same as they've always been -- make our gun laws look like the UK's. What they're doing now is divide and conquer. The self-defense gun owners are a smaller bloc, and less geographically concentrated, than the recreational/hunting gun owners. So we can be stomped on more easily. But they will be coming for the bolt-actions and over-unders too, once enough Fudds have died off.

  • ||

    The self-defense gun owners are a smaller bloc

    Bullshit.

  • Almanian.||

    self-defense gun owners are a smaller bloc, and less geographically concentrated, than the recreational/hunting gun owners

    ?? Citation? I'd thnk potentially more concentrated, if there's much difference at all.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Look at the polls among gun owners. For a while after Newtown there was majority support for an AWB and 10-round magazine restrictions. Those are absolutely not SD gun owners, unless they're idiots.

    Re: concentration, urban and suburban gun owners are mostly self defense-oriented...and they're swamped by hoplophobes in the regions they live in. There are thousands of gun owners in Pittsburgh, for example, but our representatives in the city govt, state legislature, and Congress are all raging gun grabbers.

  • Redmanfms||

    Tulpa, almost every poll that showed "gun owners" supported another AWB and magazine restrictions was patently disingenuous. The questions were almost always along the lines of "Do you support reasonable restrictions/laws/safeguards to prevent mass shootings/felons from getting guns?" None of the questions I read indicated the type of restriction the poll takers were implying or if they were implying further restrictions. Poll results can further be manipulated by targeting specific geographical areas, and in the case of firearms ownership, the respondent is self-reporting.

    Polls are ridiculous means of gauging public support for anything. They are far more informative of the poll-takers own biases than they are of popular opinion.

  • R C Dean||

    The self-defense gun owners are a smaller bloc, and less geographically concentrated, than the recreational/hunting gun owners.

    To generalize from my personal experience, I don't kow any hunting gun owners who aren't also self-defense gun owners. I'd be very surprised if you could find many recreational gun owners who also weren't self-defense gun owners.

    The guns don't care whether they are aimed at paper, animals, or people, and I suspect that when it comes to politics, the owners don't either.

  • Almanian.||

    *raises hand*

    I was strictly a hunter until about 2 years ago - so that's 48 years, and only 2 as "both". Only handguns I owned were a couple Colt .22's for finishing off aminuls who weren't quite dead yet, cause we don't want 'em suffering. And an OLD Colt .38Spcl that didn't seem good for much except missing the side of a barn.

    Other than that - typical Michigan 30 06, 30 30 for deer, .22 rifles for small game, and 12 gauges for birds.

    Bought a Glock 2 years ago, Mrs. Almanian is now looking at a plastic gun of her own, we're all concealed carry and shit. Now we're ALSO self-defense oriented - we weren't before.

    So, yeah, probably not many, but we exist(ed).

  • Almanian.||

    PS All those guns - every single one, was passed down from my dad. So the newest is about MAYBE c. late 1960's, cause he died in 1974.

    I had literally never purchased a gun myself until I got my Glock 17 two years ago. I've bought...several...since.

  • R C Dean||

    Before you had handguns, did you not think of your shotguns and rifles as being useful for self-defense, say, if somebody broke into your home?

  • Almanian.||

    Sure, "useful" - but I literally never thought of them for that purpose until the last few years. It was ingrained in me pretty hard (by my dad) that our guns were NOT for shooting people - just dinner. For the longest time they were locked in the basement and I kept no ammo in the house.

    Not too helpful for self defense :) Now I keep ammo stocked, and am looking at having a couple shorty shotguns (WITH FUCKING PISTOL GRIPS IF I HAVE TO MAKE THEM MYSELF) handy in the living areas for Mrs. Almanian and me. Been a couple break ins in our "upscale neighborhood", as the local paper described it :) Can't be too safe...

  • Generic Stranger||

    Be very careful when you do that. You have to make sure that the barrel is at least 18" (measure from the bolt face to the muzzle; a wooden dowel placed down the barrel works well) and the overall length is 26" to avoid breaking the law. Most people cut the barrel to 18.5" or so to make sure they don't fuck up and cut it a fraction of an inch too short (and yes, the ATF WILL send you to jail for that).

    Otherwise, you'll need to go through the NFA process.

  • Almanian!||

    Off the shelf from my favorite dealer-but thanks for the warning :)

  • ||

    I have known people who were avid hunters who, for instance, supported the "assault weapons" ban because "who needs an assault weapon to hunt?"

    These people are out there.

  • ||

    I have known people who were avid hunters who, for instance, supported the "assault weapons" ban because "who needs an assault weapon to hunt?"

    I've known the same types. For the most part, they honestly and truly believe that the gun-control types will be satisfied once all the scary guns are gone; i.e., ""assault weapons" and hundguns.

  • 21044||

    There out there, sure. But many of us that choose to only hunt, punch paper or break clay also understand the 2nd A & are in full support of self-defense gun owners.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Jim Zumbo pretty much crashed and burned his career for publicly holding that opinion. They're out there, but I'd say they're the minority.

  • Almanian.||

    As noted elsewhere by me and others, I "need" my guns the same way Rosa Parks (PBUH and RIP) "needed" to sit at the front of the bus.

    You don't like it? Change or repeal the 2nd amendment, assholes.

    Fuck the gun grabbers, well-intentioned, ill-intentioned or otherwise. With a stick. Sideways.

  • ||

    that's because 15 years ago, gun-control advocates wanted to do all of those things

    They still do. Without question. Just look at their BAN BONERS after Newtown. All this is describing is their mask that they learned to put on, and then let slip after a bunch of children got killed because it excited them so much.

  • Loki||

    ^This. I don't believe their "kinder, gentler" gun grabbing stance for a second. They're just trying incrementalism since they've learned that trying to ban guns outright is a political non-starter.

  • General Butt Naked||

    The Newtown is the same as the Oldtown...

  • Modern Social Liberty||

    Yeah, it's the people against gun violence who get the "boners" not all the hillbillies who get off thinking they can stand up to the most powerful military force in world history.

  • benji||

    This has become much more than business. This is about the thrill
    of wearing another man's skin. Feeling his innermost wants and
    desires. And being in control of his every single move. That's how you get off. Don't you guys want to get off with me?

  • ||

    "We don't build anything. Leave that to the chinks! Speaking of
    which, I want this sushi dinner to be the tits!"

  • General Butt Naked||

    Nobody said anything about the military.

    Ohhh, I see, you think the military is going to enforce your unconstitutional agenda for you. How peaceful of you.

    And yes, you do get boners. Giant throbbing redveiners over piles of dead babies, you sick fucks.

  • Modern Social Liberty||

    So the people who want to take empirical steps to stop piles of dead babies are the ones who get boners.

    Not the freaks who think their right to create piles of dead babies is the most important thing in the world and can never be abridged to protect citizens.

    Right.

  • sticks||

    Are you now talking about abortion? Dead babies......

  • ||

    So the people who want to take empirical steps to stop piles of dead babies are the ones who get boners.

    What is an "empirical" step? One that is backed by evidence. Because the gun control proposals aren't.

    Not the freaks who think their right to create piles of dead babies is the most important thing in the world and can never be abridged to protect citizens.

    If you haven't noticed, murder is already illegal, and no one is advocating for legalizing it. Also few people (certainly no one here) thinks that violent felons (as opposed to nonviolent felons) should be able to own firearms. Just keep burning those straw men of yours, buddy.

  • derpules||

    If those fucking babies even flinch in my direction I'm mowing em down and composting their remains in my pot garden.

  • Calidissident||

    Wait, didn't you just admit above that these laws are only theoretical because they haven't been put in place? So how can you claim they're "empirical steps"

  • Swamp Think||

    I think what we have here is a low-info voter who thinks he's a high-info type.

  • Josua||

    The clear, unambiguous objective of gun control advocates is the confiscation of firearms.

    The whole point of the existing laws for gun stores, requiring permanent record keeping for all gun sales, is to facilitate mass confiscation of firearms at some point in the future. The point of the "universal background check" is to further expand the collection of information to support the same future mass confiscation of firearms.

    Murder has been around longer than firearms. Additionally, three countries with VERY HIGH homicide rates involving firearms are El Salvador, Brazil, and Colombia. All require lawful gun owners to demonstrate a need in order to obtain a required permit for a firearm.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The Brady Campaign's president, Dan Gross, [said] "The message is now turned outward instead of inward, focused on engaging and mobilizing the latent majority of the American public that supports common-sense measures like universal background checks." Now, a representative email from a Colorado progressive group to its supporters is headlined, "No one is coming to take your gun."

    They're not going to take your guns...they're just going to make it both cost-prohibitive, procedurally-onerous, and legally-detrimental for you to buy, sell, trade, or transport any and all firearms.

    Common sense stuff.

  • Generic Stranger||

    That's just the first step. After gun owners have been marginalized and rarefied due to the high cost of ownership, THEN they'll come to take your guns.

    It's what they've done in virtually every single other country.

  • waaminn||

    This makes a ll kinds of crazy sense dude, I mean like wow.

    www.ImaAnon.tk

  • DJK||

    Wow. Why is anyone responding to this retard?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement