Simple things from simple minds:
After they explain how this wouldn’t violate the right to keep and bear arms they will then be required to tell me how easy it is to limit access to illicit drugs. Then I’m going to suggest they take point on the project of collecting the 10s of millions of guns already in circulation.
And the same cartoonist thinks his “NRA strawman” is paranoid for worrying that people want broad gun bans.
Unless the cartoonist is advocating that people be blocked from owning buns purely because of their religion.
Course it the gun control advocates /used/ to laugh and say it was gun-owner-paranoia that the government would use secret blacklists to ban people from owning guns.
Now they demand it!
That’s right! Without guns, people would never resort to gasoline, or utility knives, or suicide bombs, or steal guns from the cops.
They stoke backlash fears of tarring all muslims with the actions of a few thousand of them (they keep saying “just this one muslim,” while ignoring the many others they report on nearly every night), they talk of fears of a backlash against blacks, mentally ill, and others in the same way, all the while fanning the flames of backlash against productive citizens that happen to be gun-owners.
These morons have mental problems.
Or trucks.
As Nice, France has found out to its sorrow.
It isn’t really very easy at all. It is only easy (if for the sake of argument we ignore the 2A for a minute) to restrict legal access to weapons.
Essentially something like this was the origin for the plot of the first Jurassic Park movie. The park kept perfect records of the dinosaurs that were in the park legally; they never lost one, but they were blind to the additional dinosaurs that were in fact existing in the park without the awareness or (implicitly the approval) of the authorities.
It would be difficult to limit access to “assault weapons” because no such thing exists.
People with any knowledge on the subject know about this ploy. Gun banners are among the most ignorant people on the planet who refuse to learn even the most basic terms. That pretty much disqualifies any of their opinions and prescriptions.
There is no unambiguous definition of what constitutes an “assault weapon” since it is a made up term for any rifle that looks scary that they want to ban.
The artist thinks it’s easy to limit access to millions upon millions of easily-transportable, easily tradable, easily repairable objects?
Yeah, he’s a moron.
I’m with Publius. If you remember access to illegal weapons (black market etc.), then no, restricting access isn’t easy at all. (How’s that War on Drugs coming along?)
As was pointed out here a week or so ago, the correct way to deal with a distributed threat is to enable a distributed response. If you forbid a distributed response, what you wind up with instead is the guarantee of distributed victims.
It is a foregone conclusion that Bad People will find or make weapons and attack innocents. Some large percentage of the time, there will be no warning. What is not a foregone conclusion is whether there will be anyone on site who can return fire.
I seem to recall incidents in both Norway and France, as well as California, where large amounts of death were caused by firearms, despite having laws to make such things difficult to do. This is above and beyond what has happened in Nice so recently.
(And even in Nice, I can’t help but wonder: how easy is it, legally, to get ahold of a truck full of grenades? Or is it legal to carry grenades in France? Yet the terrorist of France managed to commit his atrocity with just such a truck…)
I think the claim that it’s easy to keep guns out of the hands of those who wish to do harm is not confirmed by the facts we have at hand.