One excuse after another
is all you get when you ask why can’t something be done to stop the gun
violence; why something cannot be done to prevent our schools from being turned
into shooting galleries.
As noted in the previous postings, the most common excuse
for inaction is we need to enforce the laws we have. That is true, we do need
to enforce existing laws. But the gun advocates stop there; they don’t want any
laws with a bite in them. They won’t agree to enforcing laws that hold people
accountable. The bottom line is, when it comes to guns, the Second Amendment
people want absolutely no restrictions on gun ownership, and laws with little
or no accountability.
Some gun advocates are so extreme in their laissez-faire
attitudes that if you follow their line of reasoning to its ultimate
conclusion, they would end up defending Adam Lanza’s right to own as many guns
as he wanted.
Second
Amendment
Second Amendment advocates engage in a variety of word and
phrase shell games. The most common game centers on the argument that guns
don’t kill, people do. Of course guns don’t kill; they are inanimate objects.
Inanimate objects only kill in people’s hands—that is the point.
Keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons,
terrorists, people who are a threat to themselves, and others, is critical to
keeping all of us safe. Yet when you suggest some sort of background check to
identify these people, the gun advocates cry foul. They claim such a check
would violate people’s civil rights. I never hear them talk about the civil
rights of students and theatergoers who have been killed or wounded. (To be
continued)
No comments:
Post a Comment