That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.Perhaps more importantly, does any ostensibly "pro-gun" Senator seriously believe that with the "advertised gun loophole" closed, the gun prohibitionists will be in any way sated in their lust for more oppressive gun laws? Are we to believe that when this legislation inevitably fails to reduce violence at all, the forcible citizen disarmament lobby will not shriek that the reason for that failure is that it does not go far enough, and that only "universal background checks" will be enough? That they will not say, as this column does, that the distinction between advertised private sales and unadvertised ones is entirely arbitrary and artificial?
No one believes that. And our so-called "allies" in the Senate want to preemptively surrender the beachhead from which the next "universal background check" assault will be launched. There is a name for such people. There are also consequences. [More]
Stumble it!
2 comments:
Of course, when the "advertising loophole" legislation "inevitably fails to reduce violence at all," the anti-gun crowd will say that it "does not go far enough," and will demand universal background checks. When UBC's fail, they will cite that failure as proof of the need for even more anti-gun laws. When a gun law fails, leftists respond by calling for more gun laws. When a welfare program fails to reduce poverty, they call for more spending on welfare programs. The old joke about a definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
That sums it up, Anon.
Post a Comment