An interesting article...

[Sogaard]

about sensible reform. I'm not usually a big Schumer fan, but he seems to be fairly level headed on the subject.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-schumer-after-newtown-pursue-a-middle-ground-on-gun-limits/2012/12/19/69e36a98-4964-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html

[Grouse]

"The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available. If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive. ... Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun control laws, on both sides of the Atlantic, have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals. In Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons in Britain are not put behind bars. ... Guns are not the problem. People are the problem -- including people who are determined to push gun control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts. There is innocent ignorance and there is invincible, dogmatic and self-righteous ignorance. Every tragic mass shooting seems to bring out examples of both among gun control advocates." --economist Thomas Sowell

Maybe those who claim they’re earnestly seeking an answer to Friday’s bloodbath should focus less on Gunsville and more on Pillsville. But right on the heels of their howling about NO GUNS came cries for MORE PSYCHIATRY. I don’t expect these remnants of 1960s ethics to ever blame drugs for anything. But what puzzles me is their newfound blind support of government. How did they turn from being the harshest critics of “The Man” in the 1960s to being his most brainwashed advocates today?

It’s also mildly amusing/disturbing how closely all the nerdy, medicated, spree-killing geeks resemble the progressive pundits who are caterwauling for unilateral disarmament of the citizenry. They look nothing like the fat and hairy—yet unmistakably male—Georgia hilljacks who milled around the gun show in Gainesville. And although I’m supposed to fear those “angry white males,” I felt far less hostility emanating from the convention floor than I do whenever I’m around leftist girly-boys.

http://takimag.com/article/gunsville_usa_jim_goad/print#ixzz2Fdm0z9oL

The irreducible challenge the Second Amendment poses to gun restrictionists is that it does not bestow upon the people a right they previously lacked. It proscribes the government from infringing upon a right the people already have.

It is not that the people are allowed to arm. It is that the government is disallowed to disarm them.

The practical consequence of living for nearly two-and-a-half centuries under the almost universally benevolent protection of the Second Amendment is a society in which there are hundreds of millions of guns, in which 47 percent of families and nearly as many Democrats as Republicans own guns, and in which the dissent over the sacrosanctity of gun rights is heard largely because of the overrepresentation in the media of the coastal, urban Left.

Those upset with the order of things are welcome to try, and doomed to fail, to repeal the Second Amendment via the constitutional process.