By Tom Knighton
When the discussion of gun control rears its ugly head, some well-meaning proponent of “common sense gun measures” invariably tells us that no one wants to take our guns. They swear that they only want the “bad” guns. Maybe they’ll say, “No one needs an assault rifle” but if you mention bans on bolt action guns or handguns, they start backing up with their hands in supplication. “No, no, no, no. No one wants to do anything about those,” he’ll say.
That means he’s either wrong or lying.
Democratic politicians have been brainwashed by political hacks like me to begin all of their statements about guns by declaring support for the Second Amendment and a deep affinity for the cultures of hunters and sportsmen—even if they themselves have never fired weapons. We call them “gun safety” proposals instead of “gun control” measures because pollsters and consultants divined that “gun safety” would be less alarming to gun voters, and that gun voters were to be coddled at all cost.
The Democratic gun control strategy fails because it is defined by this poverty of ambition—the determination never to look beyond fear of political repercussions. Universal background checks and a ban on high-capacity magazines are good ideas and we should seize the opportunity to enact them if it presents itself. But they won’t come anywhere close to making gun violence in America a tolerable problem. We are nibbling around the edges instead of proposing bold, meaningful solutions such as:
- A national gun registry, so law-enforcement officials can know when someone is compiling an arsenal. The government can track purchases of allergy medicines that can be used to make methamphetamine, and fertilizers that can be used to make bombs, like the one used in Oklahoma City in 1994, but not deadly assault weapons. That’s absurd.
- Tracking and limiting Click to see the original article