“It’s the guns, stupid,” Keith C. Burris editorializes for toledoblade.com. [Spoiler Alert: when Keith calls you stupid, he’s not kidding.] “We can’t control them, but we can, and eventually must, regulate them. Limit them.” Now that’s what I call a distinction without a difference. But Mr. Burris’ attempt to euphemize his readers into accepting the unacceptable is no different from other failed attempts by the civilian disarmament industrial complex to rebrand gun control into something more insidious. I mean, palatable. No wait. Insidious. How this for “logic” . . .
We put limits on how fast people may drive, on when and where and to whom alcohol may be sold, and on what food and drugs may be sold on the open market. We regulate political speech and spending. If we limit the kinds of guns that may be sold and to whom, the Second Amendment will endure.
That’s not the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard a gun control advocate say but it’s certainly one of the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard I’ve ever heard a gun control advocates say. We’ve got to infringe on the Second Amendment to protect its protections against infringement. Go figure.
I don’t think the term “gun regulation” will enter the antis’ lexicon. Unlike the Ohio intellectual, America’s über-antis understand that mainstream Americans place the word “regulation” somewhere between “an upside down mortgage” and “syphilis” in the list of things they feel they need to make their lives better.
After having tendered that piece of non-logic for the feeble-minded, Burris finishes his dietribe [sic] by vigorously waving the bloody shirt.
Our kids are dying. Reasonable, responsible, modest regulation of guns is simply humane. It will take political courage. But that can usually be found in times of crisis in America. I see Sen. Rob Portman (R., Ohio) as someone who could lead on this issue, and persuade those now uninformed or afraid.
We have failed to acknowledge an obvious moral imperative: Little children should not be shot in their schools. Shot multiple times. In the arms of teachers trying to shield them.
The man who killed 20 children and their teachers in Newtown, Conn., should not, with the problems he had, have had access to any gun. And he had access to weapons of war.
Visiting before her speech, Ms. Hockley told me she would never “get over” the death of her son. It’s not possible, she said, and she would not want it to be possible.
If we are a good society, a just and humane one, even an approximation of the civilization we want to be, we won’t forget it either.
It’s funny how gun control advocates get so close to the truth. Little children should not be shot in their schools. Adam Lanza should not have had access to any gun. Ms. Hockley nor society should not forget what happened that day. But gun control could not – did not – prevent that tragedy. No matter what you call it.