I am no right-winger by any means, but the one thing where I just do not agree with Democrats is on gun control. I'm not willing to give up ANY rights for (the illusion of) safety, even if I don't intent to exercise those rights. Even if there were no Second Amendment, we should all have the right in a free country to possess firearms (reasonable restrictions, background checks and such, are okay but when they don't stop all gun violence - and they won't - then they become the first step down a slippery slope).
The gun cannot be un-invented. We can all agree on that, right?
So if someone is willing to commit murder, then following the law is clearly not a concern they share with the rest of us, so why would they obey gun control laws? As long as guns exist, what POSSIBLE LAW - come on, seriously, help me out here - what POSSIBLE LAW could prevent someone willing to commit a death-penalty eligible crime from acquiring a gun against the law? Take me down your slippery slope - please - I want to understand your thought process.
Even if we completely banned guns and declared "War on Guns" a la our "War on Drugs" - the biggest policy failure in the history of our species - guns would still be as easily and widely available as marijuana. Only then, there would be NO background checks, serial numbers, registration, etc. It's a cliche, but if it's a crime to own a gun then only criminals will own guns. I don't see how anyone could be in favor of that. If complete gun prohibition would not work, then how can anything less than that work?
So come on, take me down the path of gun control - explain to me a hypothetical law you'd like passed which you believe would have prevented Von Brunn from committing his act of faith-based terrorism with a firearm.
It cracks me up when someone takes out a gun and murders random, innocent people in cold blood, and people think it is even in the ballpark of plausible relevancy that the firearm used by the murderous criminal was itself "illegal" (presumably they mean the firearm was illegally possessed as in not properly registered for whatever reason, but they could mean the gun itself was an inch too short or a gram too heavy, according to the arbitrary gun regulations/classifications Democrats love so much).
Guns are not to blame for Von Brunn. Religion is. Religious people will commit acts of faith-based terrorism no matter what. If they can't get guns then they'll use IEDs (which are already illegal). If they have to slash with knives or bash in heads with bricks, that's what they will do. Don't blame the weapon. That's so ridiculously misguided. Blame religion and the hate caused by it.
Von Brunn was a faith-based Christian terrorist. Guns have nothing to do with this - they're as incidental as the type of shoes Von Brunn was wearing when he walked into the Holocaust Museum and opened fire. You can pass whatever gun laws you want - all at the expense of our rights (even if they're rights you personally have no desire to exercise) - but nutjobs who want to kill people with guns will still get guns and still kill people with them. There is absolutely nothing anyone can do about this. You can't even make it "harder" for them to get guns. If 10 year olds can buy entirely prohibited, illegal drugs, then anyone would be able to buy entirely prohibited, illegal firearms. Penalties/more penalties/longer penalties are irrelevant - especially if someone intends to commit a crime with the firearm that carries a more serious penalty than the penalty for the illegal possession of the firearm.
Let's take the slippery slope all the way down to the bottom of the hill and pretend that a hypothetical law is passed that makes it a capital crime with mandatory execution to illegally possess a gun (of course cops, soldiers, etc are excepted). Have gun, get executed. Even with such a law, people would still acquire guns - but the ratio of people who risk execution with legitimate intentions (i.e. self-defense) to people who risk execution with bad intentions (i.e. to shoot up a public forum to kill jews/blacks/etc) greatly decreases.
But if I'm wrong, explain why. I'll keep an open mind, I promise. However, I maintain my life-long policy of completely disregarding any argument that invokes "the children" ... so if that's the best you have, don't bother. Invoking "the children" is the red herring of the most immoral of scoundrels and is the ultimate hallmark of a worthless, fallacious, utterly baseless argument devoid of any merit. The words "child" or "children" will negate everything else you say. This is my policy for all discourse, not just with the topic of gun control. For example, I ignore all arguments against gay marriage because they all inevitably resort to invoking "the children" - because there is no valid, logical reason not to give homosexuals the same rights as everyone else. Or at least, I have yet to hear one. Show me a facially plausible argument against gay marriage that neither mentions "the children" or simply invokes the Bible, and I'll gladly consider it with an open mind.
Finally, please don't accuse me of being a right-wing wackjob just because I don't agree with the standard "Democrat position" on gun control. We're not Republicans - dissent and a variety of opinions are supposed to be permitted here. I'll easily and confidently state that Bush was the worst president this country has ever had, and hopefully will ever have, I voted for Obama, and I cannot stand Faux News. And I don't believe the government is "coming to take my guns" (I only own one - a small 9mm handgun that I have not fired in well over 10 years).