Robyn Ringler is probably close to my age. But despite having some very adult experiences she is like a child in some ways. She is so naive:
Let’s pass legislation that will have no effect on you but will stop irresponsible gun dealers.
You, in this case, refers to “legal gun owners”. What she does not realize is that no such legislation is possible. Any restriction, let along something that would “stop irresponsible gun dealers”, on gun dealers or owners will have a greater effect on “legal gun owners” than it will on the “illegal gun owners”. People that would use a firearm to commit a crime will have no reservation about breaking a law intending to prevent them from possessing a gun. Not so on those that obey laws simply because they are the laws. They will honor the waiting periods, the registrations, and licensing processes all of which are barriers to gun ownership and use.
But she is coming around. She apparently recognizes people have legitimate uses for defensive firearms:
So, legal gun owners, go ahead and own your guns for defensive use.
In this further display of naiveté I suspect she doesn’t realize is that she has stepped onto a slippery slope that the VPC, The Brady Campaign and many other anti-gun bigots avoid. Once you acknowledge firearms as legitimate self-defense tools you cannot help but admit restrictions on the purchase and carrying of these tools can cost lives.
But also like a child it appears she is learning. I have hope for her. It is very, very difficult to be an advocate for something then renounce that position even when all evidence for your position crumbles away into dust. If I am reading between the lines correctly she is reexamining some of her most dearly held beliefs in regards to firearms.