What the hell does any of that mean, with regard to the final shape of the laws they're working to build? Good luck getting a straight answer.
About an hour ago, "high profile" anti-gun blogger MikeB retread that path over at Sebastian's:
Because of you, The NRA and gun owners, any lunatic who wants to get a gun can.
If [Brady Campaign "board member" and general nutbar] Joan Peterson were in charge, that wouldn’t be the case. I think most of you would still be allowed to have your guns, but you’d be inconvienced a bit.
Now, the man's pretty transparently just trolling for reactions. But given an opportunity to nail down some specifics, I thought it might be helpful to point out a reply he made in a thread over at his blog last November:
 |
| From General interwebs |
Anybody remotely familiar with New Jersey's gun laws and our violent crime rates* doesn't need my help seeing how reasonable Mike's idea of "inconvenienced a bit" is, how far divorced from reality his estimation of gun control's effectiveness is, and how much concern he has about the suppression of fundamental human rights by a hostile bureaucracy.
[* - New Jersey has the second "best" Brady rank of any state and, according to the FBI, the 22nd lowest murder rate. Mission Accomplished!]
I'll also throw in a gratuitous mention of the fact that MikeB302000 does not want to talk about how he illegally owned firearms in the past.
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't want to talk about which laws on the books at the time didn't stop him from obtaining firearms.
He doesn't want to talk about which laws he proposes would have stopped him from obtaining firearms.
He doesn't want to talk about how many lives would be lost because someone was 'inconvenienced' by those ineffective laws.
It's amazing how he posts so often but says so little.
Assuming it was true in the first place, and not just a reach for authority that he backed down from when it became clear it was a liability.
ReplyDelete