Huh?

From an opinion piece:

Still, it’s hard to argue that the easy availability of handguns and assault weapons is good for crime prevention or what the Founding Fathers had in mind in the Second Amendment.

Yes, they are right on the first point. It is hard to argue “easy availability of handguns and assault weapons is good for crime prevention”. If it were easy then people wouldn’t have so much trouble answering Just One Question. But I don’t think that is what they meant.

But on the second point, “shall not be infringed” obviously means availability cannot be restricted by the government.

As usual, the gun banners have trouble thinking straight. He apparently believes words mean what he wants them to mean rather than what they actually say.

One thought on “Huh?

  1. “Still, it’s hard to argue that the easy availability of handguns and assault weapons is good for crime prevention…”

    Mmm hmm. That’s still opening only the edge of the tupperware so that we can only see what’s in the corner. I’ve never seen a select-fire weapon in the hands of anyone other than a government agent. For most other people, the purchase of any other weapon requires one visit a special shop dedicated to selling only guns, or a gun show–and also paperwork, lots of paperwork. Thanks, I’m returning the unused portion of “easy availability” to Mr. Leubsdorf.

    Crime prevention is a non-starter. The disarmers have so diluted “gun control” with paranoia and uninformed opinions about safety, that they ruin their own recipe for success, (assuming they’re actually being truthful about their goals.) All this expensive nonsense with forms, checks, classifications, no-carry zones and gun turn-ins is the equivalent of a drag racer blowing in his helmet in the hopes it will make his car accelerate faster. It sounds like it might help, but it’s really just hot air.

Comments are closed.