DC Gun Ban from left field
Via Google Snooze alerts comes this:
Basically, I don’t want to take away the right of people to own guns, but I also think that it is not unreasonable to expect rigid and strictly upheld standards and controls in their ownership and use. We do this for any number of items, most notably automobiles, and yet none of these things, like a gun, are specifically designed to kill.
And none of these things, like a owning a gun, are specifically enumerated as a right in the Constitution. But I digress. Rigid and strict are simply criteria that cannot be followed. Rigid and strict only impacts the law-abiding. I would prefer the terms reasonable and, possibly, effective. And by effective, I mean effective at preventing gun crimes, which most proposed gun controls are not.
The point is, I’m all for gun control. I’m on the gun control bandwagon. The NRA, in my opinion, are (sic) so vehement in their defense of a vaguely worded amendment that they impede the right of more level headed folks to enact reasonable gun control that will make us all significantly safer. But I’m not for an outright ban of guns. I realize a lot of people love guns, and I also know that when treated responsibly and with respect (like most NRA members actually do), guns are safe and enrich the lives of many Americans (I just don’t understand how or why).
[…]
First, I do think the DC ban went too far and was thusly unrealistic. The idea that you’re going to have all guns recalled and reregistered and then tell the owners they must be placed under lock and key, well, you’re just about asking for people to sidestep that little law right there.
The wording is not vague at all, assuming you can pass sixth grade English. But that’s not the point. The point is that a gun-controller thinks DC’s laws cross the line. Good.
And then we have the ambiguity of the data available in assessing the effectiveness of the restrictions put in place.
There is no ambiguity.. Gun control is what politicians do instead of something.
