They don’t even try to hide it. They just come right out and say it, Children need to be protected:
Constitutional issues aside, consider youths: In Seattle, firearms are the leading cause of death among 15- to 24-year-olds. In King County, an estimated 32,000 children live in homes with unlocked firearms; about 7,000 of them live in homes with loaded firearms and about 2,000 in homes where guns are stored loaded and unlocked. Does this make sense? Don’t children deserve to live in a community where guns are safely stored, their purchase closely regulated and weapons clearly intended for maximum damage banned?
As one commenter said, “The phrase in this article that I find the most chilling ‘Constitutional issues aside…'”. Constitutional issues are just dismissed by invoking “youths”. And ignoring the fact that more children have been killed because of gun control (start by counting the number of kids killed by the Nazis) rather than in spite of it. In the comments I asked them my usual, Just One Question. No response yet. I don’t expect one either. It’s not about logic or safety. It’s “for the children.”
Notice that they leave out a key fact – how many ‘kids’ from 15 to 24 are killed. And related to that fact is the breakdown of how many of those are accidents, gang/drug related, etc.
Why do they leave out this number? Because it isn’t very large. For the real numbers see – http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=120
Why, after all, would they dwell on the Constitution? What weight does it carry? How many cases can you cite in which it has been the primary force in stopping any legislation in the last 20 years? 70 years?
All legislators, state and federal, take an Oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. What does this say about their honesty? What does it say about their loyalties?