Guns versus ideas

The Washington Post has a very interesting article about the ATF and the tracing of guns. But I couldn’t help but think how the entire tone of the article would come across to most people if one were to substitute “book” for “gun” with the ATF becoming the ATB for Alcohol, Tobacco and Books.

The Washington Post just doesn’t get it. The possession of firearms is a specific enumerated right and the government should no more tracking down the tools used to commit a crime than tracking down where someone got the idea to commit a crime. The same goes for people who think a previous gun owner should have some responsibility for what happens to their gun after it leaves their possession. If people and corporations aren’t responsible for the ideas they communicate (except in certain extreme cases) then why should anyone be responsible for tools they used to own?

6 thoughts on “Guns versus ideas

  1. I don’t understand why gun rights supporters don’t take a page out of the book of the Liberals who have overtaken academia in the past 40 years. Become ATF agents – take over the organization from the inside, the best way to direct the efforts of the ATF toward catching actual criminals instead of people who abrev. state names instead of writing them out is by being the people who decide which cases (and licenses) to go after.

  2. First point, the director is appointed by the president. This means that unless you want to resign you can end up cracking down on people who didn’t cross all their ‘T’s correctly. And it is against your own self interest to reduce the size and scope of the organization.

    Second point, academia has a valid purpose. What should the ATF be doing that isn’t really a state issue?

  3. The tone of the article almost makes me feel sorry for the ATF agents.

    Almost.

    Then I read paragraphs like the one that complains about the low number of dealers that are shut down or prosecuted, as if it’s the ATF’s job to systematically eliminate gun dealers, and my pity goes away.

  4. “Infiltrate the MSM, not the ATF. Probably easier to do anyways.”

    It seems to me that it’s far easier to infiltrate an organization to spy on it, than it is to actively change it. When you spy, you can be rather passive about things, but “go through the motions” to make people think you are on their side.

    Even infiltrating the MSM can be difficult, because you have to publish your ideas–and if they don’t match up with those in power, then it’s that much more difficult to swim upstream.

    Infiltrating academia could be just as difficult, for similar reasons.

Comments are closed.