Guess what, liberals? We will NEVER know enough about guns to be "qualified" to write gun laws!

[rrneck]

188. Be careful what you wish for.

Forced integration didn't change the way people felt one whit. But it did force people to interact, especially children. And when people interact together they find out how wrong their preconceptions about others actually are, which was the whole point. Nobody's feelings got changed, all the old bigots are just dying off. I'm from the south, I know what I'm talking about.

Those on the "anti gun" side of the argument want the guns to go away, and if not go away at least stay out of sight. In fact, the current legislation has as much to do with the appearance of guns as their actual function. That's the nature not only of the desire to ban them but also at the root of the "anti carry a gun in public" attitude. Of course the spread of concealed carry is almost complete (48 states I believe) and there is no blood running in the streets yet because people can get a permit to carry a gun. The crime rate in fact has been dropping in spite of all those guns no doubt for reasons that have nothing to do with them one way or the other.

Every one of the states that relaxed gun laws did so without the help of the National Guard. Nobody is forcing you to own or carry a gun, but you seem to want to make them go away as much as possible. Which emotional side of the issue do you think you're on? Whose feelings are being assuaged by the desire for new legislation?

If you like the new legislation, fine. Prove it will work. That proof should include something besides how you feel about guns or the people that own them.

Of course, comparing the history of racial bigotry and the gun issue is a poor analogy. Bigotry has no social or personal utility, while guns are just as useful for self defense as offense. Nobody ever had to defend themselves against assault using bigotry, although it was certainly the motivation for a lot of violence.