Gun Control Logic

This is NOT original with me - but it was too good not to pass on:

"We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid."

"Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted."

"An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you."

"Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection."

"Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain."

"Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

"Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

"Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows."

"Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed."

"A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20."

"These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state."

My comments:
The logic above is the reason why 50 years after the national gun control movement got started, support for a ban on handguns has been cut in half* , states with "shall issue"** concealed carry permits have gone from zero to forty, and when the Brady Group recently held a news conference only two reporters and one camera bothered to show up. One reporter and the camera were from the NRA.


*Only one in four now support banning handguns, in 1959 52% did.

**"Shall issue" means if meet all the criteria (pass background check, pass the class, qualify on the range, etc.) they have to give you a permit - you cannot be denied because they think you "don't really need one".

If You Can Ban The Guns, Ban The Ammo

Unbelievably the Obama EPA is actually considering a ban on ALL LEAD BULLETS. Not only is there absolutely no science behind it, existing law forbids the EPA from regulating ammo. They are considering doing it anyway. When one considers that in pistol calibers, and many rifle calibers, local and state governments ban alternative bullets as a armor piercing - if the EPA passes this regulation there will be no legal pistol ammo in California and much of the rest of the US. After recent Supreme Court Rulings, they can't ban the guns, so they will ban the ammo.

Not only is there no science indicating that lead bullets (as opposed to lead shot) pose any environmental risk in the vast majority of situations, the only possible exception being risk to California Condors who feed on parts of animals killed with lead bullets. This very limited risk has already been addressed with a ban on lead ammo use for hunting in the condor range. The EPA is considering a lead ammo ban for all purposes.

Unlike lead in paint or batteries, the in ammunition is stable and poses no more risk in the environment than it does where it occurs naturally. In addition, lead in firing ranges (where it is most often found in large amounts) is already recycled because it is just too valuable to leave in the dirt berms or bullet traps that catch it. In reality, shooters are some of the most environmentally conscious people in the world. Not only do they recycle the lead from their bullets, they reuse the empty cartridge cases as well.

To make maters worse, 90% of fund for wildlife conservation in the US comes from the sale of the very ammo and ammunition components the EPA is considering banning. Who do you think will have to make up that shortfall?

With the economy in shambles, the Obama Administration has better things to do than this!