Why gun owners need a change of heart ... Why can’t those who own guns and know the most about them take responsibility for ensuring they're used safely and without malicious intent? [More]
We do. The 5M or so members of the NRA and other national and state groups are the most heavily armed yet peaceable population on the planet. We're also the ones who provide real safety training, as opposed to torturing the meaning of the word to stump for ignorance, avoidance, hostility, and bans.
But Fudd, here, knows that. He is really saying we should assume responsibility for abuses committed by the products of a Democrat agenda he agrees with.
And here's the tip-off:
The Constitution gives us the right to “bear arms,” not the right to use any and all kinds of weaponry that might ever be devised by ingenious armament manufacturers.
That along with "The National Rifle Association used to be..." talking point straight out of the gun-grabber playbook...
The Constitution "gives" no rights. The Founders recognized the people having "every terrible implement of the soldier" was their "birthright," and the NRA was founded by generals who wanted Americans skilled in the use of "weapons of war."
It figures this Opposite Day "progressive" stooge specializes in "ethics."
[Via Andy M]
He repeats the gun prohibitionists' decades-old lie: "After 1977, the NRA became a lobbying organization for gun manufacturers...."
ReplyDeletethe essence of the gun control argument is that the people cannot be trusted with the ability to make life and death ethical decisions--only government angels can do that. Therefor, the people must be rendered helpless so as not to have to make those decisions.
ReplyDeleteThe core of the right to arms advocates is exactly that the people on average make those decisions better than government thugs. And in any event, you are better off with government agents drawn from an ethical people trained in the proper use of arms--the "well regulated militia" we've heard spoken of.