Over in the post the I will not let die, someone calling himself “Bragan” decided to demonstrate just how separated “liberals” are from logic:
Greg, nobody is trying to deprive you of your hunting rifle. Hell, I don’t even want to deprive you of your hand gun if you want to carry it around with you so you can fend off the bad guys like Dirty Harry. But what I would like to do is make it more difficult for the bad guys — and let’s recognize that emotion can very often make a normally “good” person do very bad things — to possess a hand gun, through licensing, registration and greater penalties for illegal possession (and certainly there is no legitimate justificaiton for owning an assault rifle).
I responded:
Bragan,
Anyone trying to restrict ammunition sales, or make it more expensive, is attacking my ability to hunt. Since my hunting rifle is an “assault rifle”, your desire to ban those is most certainly a desire to deprive me of my hunting rifle.
But, of course, the core of the matter is this:
But what I would like to do is make it more difficult for the bad guys — and let’s recognize that emotion can very often make a normally “good” person do very bad things — to possess a hand gun, through licensing, registration and greater penalties for illegal possession
The only rational way to read that is that you want to disarm everyone, since even “normally good people” can be “bad guys”, and you want to keep the “bad guys” away from guns.
Note that what you don’t want to do is actually punish the bad guys when they commit a crime. Nope, you want to engage in “prior restraint”, and keep “them” from having weapons in the first place. (After all, once they do commit a crime, then they’re “poor, misunderstood people who aren’t responsible for what they’ve done.” Yes, I’m extrapolating that part from other fruitcakes in your left-wing coalition. Deal.)
IOW, no sale.