I have nothing against guns, if you want one, have one, have a bunch of them. It doesn’t bother me in the least.

The NRA tells us that ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’. This is a valid argument, People kill people using an assortment of items, knives, ropes, drugs and water are just a few.

Clearly it would be impossible to regulate all of the creative ways that humanity has discovered to take lives. The idea of going through a background check to buy a meat carving knife is ridiculous. The idea of running a background check on a boat owner that needs new lines (ropes) for his Yacht is equally stupid.

I view guns in a slightly different way. They have a single function, they kill. Sure there are people that use them for benign purposes, target practice. The Olympic Biathlon is a prime example. But when you move these people out of the equation what are you left with? Hunters! Hey I love hunters, the idea of putting food on the family table is great. I want to come over for dinner.

The problem is that the NRA is both right and wrong. They are right, Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. They are also right that the vast percentage of gun owners are good and decent people. The big question is what do with the 1% that wish to use guns for bad purposes?

In the next breath the NRA are wrong, not everyone should have a gun. This has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, it is about common sense. A car is just as deadly a weapon as a gun. To operate a car there is a test. There are no guaranties as to what this person might do with the car, but at least there is a rudimentary test.

What is wrong with a test? Actually I am in favor  of the idea of different tests for different applications. Driving a 50cc scooter is far different from a 1200cc motorbike. A compact car handles somewhat differently from an 18 wheeler.

I am not sure that one size fits all. But in the world of guns, the NRA has me outgunned.

The opening salvo:

On April 4, 2013, Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy (D) signed Senate Bill 1160 into law, unleashing one of the most draconian gun control laws in the nation on his constituents.  Among other things, the 140-page law bans large classes of firearms and magazines that had been obtained lawfully by tens of thousands of Connecticut residents.  Limited grandfather provisions apply to those who registered otherwise banned items before January 1, 2014.  Others in possession could face felony penalties for violations.  President Obama himself was in Connecticut four days after this bill became law, praising it as a model for the nation.

You can call me old fashioned, but who needs an AK47 with a 50 round magazine to hunt  Squirrels?

Huff and puff are what these folks like to do. Bags of money, but why spend it on helping a single person involved in a law suit when you can color the political spectrum with TV ads?

On that subject they offer this:

NRA is currently backing a lawsuit, Shew v. Malloy, to challenge the constitutionality of several provisions of the law, including its expanded bans on semi-automatic firearms and its restrictions on magazine capacity.  Some have wondered why NRA has not appeared as a named plaintiff in the suit.  Simply put, experience has often shown that NRA is more effective in lending its expertise and resources, rather than its name, to litigation. 

Yup, and I fell off the Turnip Truck, but it wasn’t last night.

For those of you that want to read the whole grizzly article put out by the NRA you can find it here. Personally I think it makes about as much sense as Ted Cruze reading ‘Green Eggs And Ham’.

Simon Barrett



Be Sociable, Share!