Newest Aol News piece: Gun Control Emotions vs. Gun Control Fact

My newest piece at AOL News starts this way:

Just 24 hours after the shooting in Tucson, politicians were calling for more gun control. And the drumbeat has continued.

On Sunday, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called for using the information supplied on people's applications to join the military to determine whether they will be banned from buying guns. Sens.Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind., promised a new push for renewing at least part of the federal assault weapons ban. The previous week had been filled with calls for everything from gun show regulations to a thousand-foot gun-free zone around politicians.

But while the emotional reaction to a mass shooting is understandable, the fact is that some of the proposals would at best only make people feel better and at worst make them less safe.

Schumer's proposal, for example, would try to pick up criminal activities included in military applications for which there are no criminal convictions. But the military has a good reason to maintain confidentiality when it interviews new recruits: It wants to get the most honest answers it can. . . .

Labels: ,


Blogger Chas said...

"Schumer's proposal, for example, would try to pick up criminal activities included in military applications for which there are no criminal convictions."

Markie Marxist sez: "My commie compadre, Charlie Schumer, is politically correct! Gun ownership is such a heinous affront to the authority of the state that it must be denied by any means necessary! Innocence is no defense! Just because someone wasn't convicted of a crime doesn't mean that they shouldn't be denied a gun for that crime. For the purpose of gun control, we shouldn't need a conviction. Instead, we should be able to just assume that a crime was committed, call it due process to keep the courts happy, and then deny the individual his or her gun. That's just common communist sense!"

1/20/2011 5:42 PM  
Blogger Vigilante said...

These guns need to be controlled. By controlling them, we will reduce violence not only in the United States, but across the border in Mexico as well. In May 2010, President Felipe Calderon spoke before a joint session of the U.S. Congress and called for a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban. According to law enforcement officials, 90 percent of the guns picked up in Mexico from criminal activity are purchased in the United States.

Thanks to the ideology of the NRA and its 2nd Amendment theology, ready access to semiautomatic weapons and availability of extended-capacity magazines insure massacres will occur every few years in the U.S. and every few weeks in Mexico.

1/20/2011 11:46 PM  
Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

Did you miss the title of this blog, Vigilante? Emotions vs. Gun Control Fact. I personally enjoy a well thought out argument that is based upon fact and not emotional conjecture, which of course you have failed to produce.

As far as gun control laws go, they are illegal as they are in direct conflict with the Constitution itself. Perhaps you should peruse the SCOTUS case of Marbury v Madison and enlighten yourself.

As for myself, I would prefer to be able to defend myself against mentally unstable individuals, criminals, and whomever else would wish to hurt I, or my family. Banning firearms is not only illegal, it is an affront to all who would live as free men and women!

1/21/2011 2:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home