It's okay to ban handguns as long as rifles and shotguns are permitted.
The D.C. Circuit, for good reason, called that argument "frivolous." "It could be similarly contended," wrote Senior Judge Laurence Silberman, "that all firearms may be banned so long as sabers were permitted." After all, D.C. does not ban home possession of knives or hatchets. Does that justify the city's handgun ban? Could publication of cookbooks be barred under the First Amendment as long as restaurant guides were allowed?
Emphasis mine.
The problem with the gun banners is that they act like only certain types of firearms are lethal, forgetting that it's the person using the gun that is the problem. A .22 short in the hands of a thug is infinitely more dangerous to you than a .44 Magnum in mine. A shotgun used for shooting pigeon will just as easily shoot a human being if used for that purpose.
That's why all this "no one needs gun of type X" is horse shit. Unless you want to ban them all ,from the .22 to the 577 tyrannosaur, shotguns and hunting rifles alike, you will always have a hard time banning any specific one (and remain logically consistent).
But I have a sneaky suspicion all is what the anti-rights people are after.
Hat Tip PGP
rolled out on
Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:21 PM