If the new Supreme Court stymies gun safety laws, what comes next? [More]
This premise as stated makes me wonder why this infringements promoter has been afforded so much respect by some in the armed citizen advocacy community. "He's not as bad as ShannonWatts" just means he doesn't scare as many people away with a lunatic demeanor, making incremental erosions seem non-threatening and reasonable to those who don't know any better.
[Via Jess]
1 comment:
"... gun safety laws ..."
They keep using that phrase. I don't think it means what they think it means.
As Frank Luntz has pointed out, and demonstrated repeatedly, when you control the language used in a discussion, you gain an advantage on controlling the discussion itself. We erred in ceding to the Left's use of the term "gun safety" instead of "gun control." It should have been loudly challenged every time it was used.
More to the point, there are some laws that attempt to codify what are regarded as principles of gun safety, but they are a small percentage of the encrusted infringements that now affect that which "shall not be infringed." And despite the pearl clutching hysterics in the article pointed to by this post, they are not the gun CONTROL laws most at risk by the Supreme Court's current deliberations.
Post a Comment