Goldilocks 'gun control,' revisited

Way back in March of 2008, I did a post about "The Goldilocks approach to 'gun control.'" At the time, I foolishly thought I had invented that idea, until Thirdpower pointed me to Mr. Bieser's cartoon. Damn it, Third--you just can't let me enjoy my thinking that I'm smarter than I actually am, can you?

Alright, so it's not a new idea--it's still a good one. In that post, I was referring to hardware--the Swiss Mini Gun being "too small," and .50 caliber rifles being "too big." There are plenty of other hardware possibilities: we hear so-called "assault weapons" demonized because they're too inaccurate (but can be fired quickly), and precision tactical rifles ("sniper rifles," in gun grabber parlance) condemned for being too accurate. That was, by the way, the VPC complaining about both the "too inaccurate" guns and "too accurate" guns. Even more amusing, the VPC refers to the Bushmaster XM-15 (pdf file) used by Malvo and Muhammad in Washington D.C. in 2002 as both an "assault weapon" and a "sniper rifle."

Today, though, it occurs to me that the Goldilocks school of forcible citizen disarmament is not limited to calls for banning (or at least restricting) hardware. Remember what the anti-rights people said about guns in national parks? Here's one example:

Passage of this legislation that would allow firearms of all kinds in national parks is an absolute travesty. There is simply no need for it, given the extremely low risks that visitors face in national parks compared with everywhere else. Legislators who voted for this Amendment now have to live with the fact that they have, in fact, increased the risk to visitors and employees, as well as the risk to wildlife and some cultural resources.

Get that? Guns shouldn't be allowed in national parks, because national parks aren't violent enough to justify being "allowed" to carry an effective means of self-defense. Aaalllriiighty, then.

On the other hand, Congressman Mike Quigley (D-IL) argues that efforts to overturn Chicago's draconian gun laws are misguided because Chicago is too violent for people to be trusted with an effective means of self-defense:

But the threat of gun violence has by no means dissipated. Chicago communities are still reeling from losses of neighbors, children and friends -- innocent bystanders caught by a stray bullet, someone in the wrong place at the wrong time. The last thing our city needs is more guns on the street and more children fearing for their safety.

So . . . is there anywhere that's just right for citizens to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms?