"When you deny high-risk people access to guns, the evidence shows that saves lives," said Daniel W. Webster, director of Hopkins' Center for Gun Policy and Research and the report's lead author. "And when you regulate all gun sales, fewer guns get diverted to criminals." [More]Right Dan. Let's all be like Maryland, which "is among a small number of states that already restrict or prohibit gun ownership among the high-risk groups targeted in the report."
Let's go after folks who haven't been adjudicated prohibited in a control freak orgy.
Let's criminalize these "high risks"--and deny access to little scofflaws like this one. Or how about military veterans who are not yet 21?
Did you know that, according to some with a vested interest in defining things, "if you have answered YES to 'Do you drink alone?' there is a definite warning that you may be an alcoholic"? So those of you who are single and maybe want to watch the game and have some beer, or enjoy some single malt with a cigar on your own, or have some wine--you'd better not do it alone.
It sounds like if anyone needs to be a prohibited person, it would be the paranoid control fetishist projecting his sickness on everybody else.
4 comments:
So Ol' Dan is still singing the "Not Enough 'Prohibited Purchasers' Blues," eh?
He really needs to learn a new song.
As said elsewhere "I wake up breaking the law"!
"...fewer guns get diverted to criminals."
You mean like Fast & Furious, Dan? Should only our government be allowed to divert guns to criminals?
You are a poor imitation of your namesake.
How did that comedian put it ... I don't drink alone, but I do consider the goldfish as company....
Post a Comment