Saturday, May 10, 2008

“We're All Gun Nuts Now”

John McCormack at The Weekly Standard:

. . .With both contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination evading the gun control issue as if it were sniper fire, you couldn't blame gun control advocates for feeling bitter.

Yet Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence--the pro-gun control counterweight to the National Rifle Association--says Obama and Clinton are "coming fairly close to delivering the message we'd like."

On licensing and registering guns, Helmke says, they are "being realistic" in recognizing "there's no support for pushing that forward at this stage." His thoughts on the candidates' ducking questions on the D.C. gun ban? "They're politicians, and most politicians on tough calls do not answer." . . .
McCormack’s “We're All Gun Nuts Now” article is here.


I believe the Second Amendment was meant to assure individual citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

I also favor some restrictions of who can own and keep guns and the type of guns involved. But with more than 20,000 gun laws already on the books in this country, I don’t think we need still more laws.

BTW – Does everyone agree that some of the places with the strictest gun laws are also places where guns are most easily available to criminals? I’m thinking DC and NYC, for example.

And no, Obama supporters, I don’t think I’m a bitter person. I don’t even think I’m a “typical white person”, whatever that’s supposed to mean.


Anonymous said...

John -

I agree with you 100% on the Second Amendment. Indeed, I think every law-abiding citizen should own a gun.

Also, you are right about DC but less so about NYC. The reason NYC crime rates are not higher is that NYC is blanketed with police. NYC has about 450 policemen (down from 500)per 100 thousand inhabitants. By contrast, Montgomery County MD, where I reside, has about 104. When guns are taken away from law abiding citizens, there are two choices (or combinations thereof). Substitute police for law-abiding citizens or allow criminals free reign. NYC has opted for the former, DC has opted for the latter.

Jack in Silver Spring

Anonymous said...

John: You say you favor "some restrictions on who can own...guns and the type of guns involved." May I ask you to clarify just what those restrictions might be? And do you favor similar restrictions on who can write or speak freely according to his conscience? I am always wary of any restrictions on constitutionally-guaranteed rights; I accept such limitations as denying the Second Amendment right to convicted felons, mentally unstable persons, and liberals (just kidding); just as I accept that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is not a right guaranteed by the First Amendment. Do you accept more rigorous limitations? Please enlighten us.
Tarheel Hawkeye

JWM said...

To Jack and TH,

The hour is late.

I'll respond to your thoughtful posts tomorrow.