Guns & Ammo Fires Editor After Publishing Editorial Calling for Gun Control

[krispos42]

43. The reflexive reaction of the gun-control movement...

...has caused a counter-reaction from the pro-guns movement, I'm afraid.

The fundamental problem that Democrats face is that making gun laws stricter does not generally make society safer, while organizing the gun-owners that are affected by the gun-control laws. And I think we can both admit that some laws that are regularly proposed are not about public safety, but about waging some kind of culture war.

Gun owners, generally speaking, get organized when they feel themselves the victim of unjust gun laws. They put money and effort into organizing politically. Non-gun-owners, though, who do not feel the effects of gun laws they advocate for, do not counter-organize. They do not turn out in large numbers to reward the politicians that make owning what they do not and will not own harder.

Naturally, the continuous efforts by anti-gun groups, primarily Democrats, to ban "assault weapons", as well as a few other treadworn proposals, has made the NRA and many gun-owners reactionary to an extent. They've achieved the mentality that every gun-law proposal will, in some hidden way, be used to deprive people forcefully of their guns. Of course, the fact that the anti-gun groups reflexively propose assault-weapon bans and magazine limits at the slightest mention in the corporate media of an AR-15 doesn't help either.

I finally read the Metcalf editorial in G&A today, and see nothing wrong with it. He is pointing out that a concealed-carry permit can be thought of as an "operator's license" for a CCW pistol. I have no problem with that, and think the magazine was wrong to terminate him.

For what it's worth, in the same issue, in the letters to the editor, the magazine is heavily criticized for not being involved in the post-Newtown gun-control debate, in particular the draconian measures proposed by Senator Feinstein.

At some point in the future, there will be enough mass murders and/or political assassinations involving the use of guns to sufficiently enrage the voting public, and your side will finally lose.

What laws are being proposed that would dramatically lessen the guns-per-capita rate in the near future? Nothing, as far as I can tell. Even if things like magazine limits and "assault weapon" bans were passed, they do not affect the number of guns sold, merely the type of guns sold.

If Feinstein had suceeded in her ban on virtually all semi-automatic long guns, then the millions of people year that were buying semiautos for self-defense ("tactical&quot use will simply switch over to lever-action and pump-action guns with the same features... AR-15 and AK-47 magazines, nonreflective black finishes, quick-adjustable buttstocks, flash hiders, mounting rails for tactical flashlights and laser sights and holographic sights, etc.

Or handguns. You know, the guns used in 65% of all murders?

What really irritates me is that the "we have to get rid of the guns!" mentality is preventing so much action on the root causes of crime and violence.