Ah, me, once\nagain the Prohibitionists want to take away the property of the innocent as if\nthat will somehow impact the guilty. \nOnce again, a respected citizen, a municipal employee, snaps and commits\nmass murder with ordinary handguns he legally purchased, passing background\nchecks. Reference is made by reporters\nto one of the .45 caliber pistols he used having a sound suppressor. If that\u2019s\ntrue, and he got it legally, the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms\nand Explosives checked him out over a period of months and found him clean. So\nmuch for the proposed mandatory background checks which, as most of them are\nwritten, would prevent you from selling or lending a gun to a friend, neighbor,\nor relative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And once\nagain, we hear the cry, \u201cThey\u2019re good guys with guns, until they aren\u2019t,\u201d with\nthe implicit or even explicit meaning that none of us can be trusted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
My answer to\nthat is this: Mr. or Ms. Gun Prohibitionist, if you\u2019re saying that all the rest\nof us are potentially dangerously unstable, but you\u2019re not and somehow have the\nmoral and ethical standing to disarm the rest of us, you have just confessed to\nnarcissistic elitism. Aren\u2019t you the\nvery ones who, in another context, tell America we should not listen to\nnarcissistic elitists?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And if you include yourself in your belief that all of us could snap at any moment and commit mass murder, why should any of us be guided by a self-confessed potential monster? <\/em>Because, you see, the rest of us aren\u2019t <\/em>like that, or America\u2019s streets would look like the set of \u201cThe Walking Dead\u201d TV show.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The never-ending debate continues. Permit me to share some debate points I\u2019ve found effective in the past. You can find them here <\/p>\n\n\n\n Understanding the gun debate, part 1 <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n