Yes, Let the Rationalization Begin

At a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee on an NRA-backed bill to restrict the release of crime gun trace data (H.R. 5005), [Debbie] Wasserman Schultz offered an amendment to the pro-gun bill to outlaw gun possession by individuals convicted of misdemeanor sex crimes against minors. What constitutes such a crime varies from state to state, but includes enticing a minor over the Internet, sexual exploitation of a minor, and criminal sexual abuse. Not to mention more serious sex crimes against children that are pleaded down to misdemeanors. Her amendment was quickly accepted by H.R. 5005's sponsor, Lamar Smith (R-TX), with no debate. So for those who ask, "Where do even pro-gun legislators draw the line?," the answer, apparently, is child sex offenders.

This is just a clever little bomb thrown under the bus by a committed subversive. But it's guaranteed to embarrass, and is therefore a formidable publicity ploy--after all, how could anyone be for armed sex offenders?

Also caught in this net could be a teenager one year older than their under-the-age-of-consent boyfriend or girlfriend, and their behavior wouldn't even need to include sex. For that, the antis rationalize a lifetime ban.

This is the problem when we allow anyone not institutionalized to be classified a "prohibited person," and it's where NRA management's logic of compromise proves paradoxical.

If you can't be trusted with a gun, you can't be trusted without a custodian.

If you're unfit to live in a free society, you're unfit to live free.