Talking point

Sebastian points us to this piece of extreme bigotry.


I think the good guys have a better response to the demand for one gun a month restrictions. The background details are here but the one line response we need to hit these guys with is:



How do you propose to enforce one gun a month?

4 thoughts on “Talking point

  1. A lot of them are just fine with the government tracking all guns sales in a database so that something like this can be enforced. We already have such a system being operated by the state police, despite the fact that Pennsylvania law specifically prohibits any registration of firearms. The State Supreme Court ruled that since it was merely a record of sale, and not comprehensive, that it was not a registry. So far, we’ve been unable to get the general assembly to act to correct this action.

    Despite the fact that the registry isn’t comprehensive, police departments have been using it that way, and have seized more than a few guns from people because they weren’t in the “registry.” We have a few Section 1983 suits pending on this issue in federal court.

  2. In order for the “government tracking all sales” law to work for the “one gun a month” situation it would require tracking or banning of private sales. That is usually a hard sell as well.

  3. Of course. Which means we can debate the registration rather than the restriction on the number of guns per unit time. That is a much easier sell to most people.

    Even better of course is to ask Just One Question and put them on the defensive but I don’t know that the one gun a month laws have been tested enough refute a claim that this is something new that should be tried.

Comments are closed.