Elizabeth Warren: Anti-Firearm Extremist?
Kinda seems that way.
I'm willing to consider some additional gun-control measures. E.g. background checks and/or other reasonable additional measures for modern sporting rifles, and e.g. for high-capacity magazines. I'm even willing to consider the extremely dangerous idea of "red-flag laws"--legislation just about designed to be abused. (The same people who think everyone to their right is a racist on the basis of wildly-spun and virtually non-existent evidence will undoubtedly suddenly discover that every gun-owner is a dangerous potential mass shooter who needs his gun taken away. And are psychiatrists/psychologists going to make crucial decisions in such a system? Because they're not exactly known for their political neutrality, as a group.) I don't generally see a problem with short waiting periods, especially, again, for MSRs, high-capacity magazines and the like. And I have nothing at all against prosecuting sellers who break the law. Go get 'em, I say.
But any such legislation would have to be proven to be effective in states before implemented at the national level. (Why do people say "at the federal level"? That makes no sense at all.) Thing is, we're actually talking about putting restrictions on massive numbers of law-abiding gun-owners in the hopes that it'll stop a few crazies. It probably won't affect the real loci of gun violence--inner-city gangs and crime. We could do more to cut down on that by reversing the Ferguson effect than by any such gun-control measures. (Speaking of which--Warren also got that stuff about Ferguson massively wrong, of course.)
I used to be more amenable to some of what often get called "common-sense" gun-control measures. But, first, we know that the "assault-weapons" ban didn't do anything. And, second, the left lost its mind. Unless/until it regains it--which I do still expect--I'm sort of inclined not to give in on anything, since they now automatically move to more radical positions after each victory. Also, I now sort of think in terms of the sweep of history. The anti-gun inclination will always be there, and always work to disarm the people. It will be consumed by radical fervor from time to time. All it'd take is one anti-gun victory every decade or so, and in a hundred years we'd be in the sorry state England's in.
Gun-owners would likely be more amenable to more restrictions if there were real evidence of their efficacy--and if there weren't plenty of evidence that no restriction will ever be sufficient to placate the anti-firearm left.
I'm willing to consider some additional gun-control measures. E.g. background checks and/or other reasonable additional measures for modern sporting rifles, and e.g. for high-capacity magazines. I'm even willing to consider the extremely dangerous idea of "red-flag laws"--legislation just about designed to be abused. (The same people who think everyone to their right is a racist on the basis of wildly-spun and virtually non-existent evidence will undoubtedly suddenly discover that every gun-owner is a dangerous potential mass shooter who needs his gun taken away. And are psychiatrists/psychologists going to make crucial decisions in such a system? Because they're not exactly known for their political neutrality, as a group.) I don't generally see a problem with short waiting periods, especially, again, for MSRs, high-capacity magazines and the like. And I have nothing at all against prosecuting sellers who break the law. Go get 'em, I say.
But any such legislation would have to be proven to be effective in states before implemented at the national level. (Why do people say "at the federal level"? That makes no sense at all.) Thing is, we're actually talking about putting restrictions on massive numbers of law-abiding gun-owners in the hopes that it'll stop a few crazies. It probably won't affect the real loci of gun violence--inner-city gangs and crime. We could do more to cut down on that by reversing the Ferguson effect than by any such gun-control measures. (Speaking of which--Warren also got that stuff about Ferguson massively wrong, of course.)
I used to be more amenable to some of what often get called "common-sense" gun-control measures. But, first, we know that the "assault-weapons" ban didn't do anything. And, second, the left lost its mind. Unless/until it regains it--which I do still expect--I'm sort of inclined not to give in on anything, since they now automatically move to more radical positions after each victory. Also, I now sort of think in terms of the sweep of history. The anti-gun inclination will always be there, and always work to disarm the people. It will be consumed by radical fervor from time to time. All it'd take is one anti-gun victory every decade or so, and in a hundred years we'd be in the sorry state England's in.
Gun-owners would likely be more amenable to more restrictions if there were real evidence of their efficacy--and if there weren't plenty of evidence that no restriction will ever be sufficient to placate the anti-firearm left.
posted by Winston Smith at
8:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home