Quote of the day—Paul Sanders

Have you ever thought about the underlying theme of gun control? 

“It’s too easy to get a gun.”

Exactly what does that mean?  Simply “getting a gun” is a harmless action.  What one does after they obtain it is what matters.  Since we can’t control what someone does with a firearm after they obtain it, we simply prevent them from getting one in the first place, or so the idea goes.

There are a couple of big problems with this premise.  First of all, we have this little thing called due process.  In a free society, we simply do not deny someone their rights based on what they “might do.”  You can spin it any way you like, that is simply not how a Constitutional Republic is supposed to function.  Our founders would roll over in their graves at such a suggestion.

Secondly, if you take the “solution” to its logical conclusion, we must make it impossible for everyone to get a gun so nobody can misuse it.  There is simply no other conclusion to which you can arrive.  Preventing someone from purchasing a firearm based on suspicion of future behavior is a fool’s errand.  The only way for it to be effective is to apply it to everyone.

So, when someone says, “Nobody wants to take your guns”, what they really mean is, “We want to make it impossible to ever get one in the first place.”

Paul Sanders
December 23, 2018
The Flawed Premise of Gun Control
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

2 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Paul Sanders

  1. All right then, let us also take away cell phones, computers, copy machines, printing presses, chalk boards, pencils, markers ( are there more?) because someone might use any one of these to write or communicate “HATE SPEECH” and after all, that might trigger someone to go off the deep end and commit a crime or seek violent retribution. Oh, wait . . . DANG! now we have to start taking away knives, baseball bats, sticks, rocks . . . How is the lunacy of this whole discussion not bringing about the total isolation of these idiots?

  2. Interesting comments at that site (apart from some “rules” that seem quite odd – to an outsider, anyway).

    One commentator is asking if the author thinks that the fact New York State has not had any mass-casualty shootings since enacting the “SAFE Act” is a statistical anomaly.

    If I were a member of the site, I’d remind him that mass-casualty shooting events are themselves statistical anomalies, so it’s impossible to draw conclusions.

    Then I’d remind him that Chicago (for example) has nearly every item on a gun controller’s wish list, but still has 500+ murders every year.

    And that California also has nearly every item on a gun controller’s wish list (and has been ranked #1 by Brady/Everytown for “commonsense gun safety laws” for as long as I’ve been in this, including post-NY-“SAFE-Act” years) and HAS had several mass-casualty shooting events in recent years, and ask if THAT is a statistical anomaly?

    Maybe I’ll sign up so I can point that out…. Seems kind of important….

Comments are closed.