A New Gun Argument

The mayors, Menino said, do not want to meddle with the rights of hunters.

That's your "new gun argument"? Sorry pal, "The 2nd Amendment ain't about duck hunting" bumper stickers have been around for years. Clinton and Kerry in camos didn't fool us then, and you're not fooling anyone but the fools now.

The National Rifle Association regularly says that we don't need new laws and should simply enforce the regulations on the books. But if many of the existing laws are unenforceable, that statement is meaningless.

That's because gun control laws don't work. Some of us wish NRA would accept that simple fact, but evidently they think that message resonates with enough voters to advance their agenda, and they're playing a political game.

Basically what you're saying is, if 20,000 laws on the books are ineffective, 20,001 will do the trick. In what other demonstration of cause and effect would that not be considered insane?

Yes, there is a cultural difference between big cities and rural areas, but it's a difference in how guns are used. Rural people treasure their guns mostly for hunting and recreation, and as collectors. In inner cities, guns -- especially handguns -- are used almost entirely to threaten or kill other human beings.

You want a "new gun argument"? You haven't got the guts to explore a "new gun argument."

But it's inarguable that the culture you rail against, where handgun abuse is the highest, resides in areas where the populace overwhelmingly votes in lock-step with the "gun control" slate.

Sorry, E. J. Dionne Jr. You've demonstrated nothing new here. You're just another in a long train of boringly unoriginal hacks trotting out the same old tired arguments as you cheer on the police state. You're just another ignorant socialist who would be useless in a defensive situation, but insistent on imposing your contemptible impotence on all men--as long as other men do the enforcement.