|
NRA-ILA GRASSROOTS
VOLUME 25, NUMBER 25
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
A common theme among
anti-gun extremists is what we often refer to as the “Goldilocks” approach to
limiting access to firearms by law-abiding citizens. Rather than admit
that the ultimate goal is to disarm all Americans, those opposed to the
Second Amendment create fictional arguments about why certain types of
firearms, ammunition, or even accessories should be eliminated.
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
Shortly before
4:00am last Saturday morning, the two week long Third Review Conference
(RevCon3) on the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the
Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (PoA)
finally came to end.
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
It is not surprising
that gun control activists who harp endlessly about “common sense” gun
restrictions and the need for ever more legislative reforms
(here, here and here, for example) aren’t particularly
interested in whether the various bans and other restrictions actually
qualify as “common sense” or effective, so long as the end result is fewer
guns. A decade after the Heller case was decided, though, many of
our nation’s courts exhibit much the same mindset.
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
Deeming “gun
violence” a “public health crisis” has become commonplace in the efforts to
curtail the rights of law-abiding Americans. Comparisons are made to
cigarettes and cars, both of which were the focus of public health
campaigns. Dr. Daniel Blumenthal wrote in an op-ed that “A public
health approach has been used in addressing other causes of death and injury
and has not required that the causative instrument outlawed or confiscated.”
|
No comments:
Post a Comment