What Gun Laws Would You Accept?

This is a post I made on thehighroad.org in response to the same question:

No victim, no crime.

The tool does not matter. For those who think the tool does matter, please read on:

My sister and her three year old daughter were stabbed and strangled to death back in 1977 in their own home.

The weapons were a kitchen knife and a shoestring.

Are you seriously going to argue that since no gun was used, this was somehow less of a crime than it would have been if a gun had been used?

Upon reading of this crime, how many of you thought, “Oh, thank goodness he didn’t use a gun. That would have been really bad.”?

I’m guessing no one would think that. Ever.

And how many of you thought, “What if she’d been able to defend herself?”

I’ve asked myself that a thousand times.

I submit that the only reason we’re even talking about this is because of the nuttiness we’ve been subjected to all our lives. For some reason it is hard to resist when we’ve grown up with it and so many people around us, people we respect even, have embraced the the false premise that says gun control equals crime control.

It’s time to say, “Enough already. We do not accept the premises of gun laws. We can see for ourselves that, no matter how ‘reasonable’ they may sound when promoted by politicians, their effects have run counter to their stated purposes.”

As for making it illegal for criminals to have guns; How’s it been working? Uh, criminals don’t obey the laws, remember? Gun laws do not apply to them.

“Gun control” is about one thing– controlling the law abiding. The Framers knew it. Why aren’t we teaching it?

And so it comes down to education.

As for the “under aged”: Parenting, anyone? And the same thing applies here as to criminals– the good kids will obey their parents and the laws. The bad ones will have guns, just as easily as they have drugs and alcohol.

A gun law is nothing more than a government enforced monopoly, reserving guns for criminal use only.

When are we actually going to enforce the Constitution, and protect it against all enemies, foreign and domestic? That’s my question.

As Oleg put it, regarding politicians: What do they have in mind, that they would prefer us unable to resist aggression?

What, indeed.