Maybe what we need here is a nuanced answer

I find it beyond belief that any believer in the Second Amendment can seriously think that the original intent of the Founders was that private individuals should own tactical nuclear weapons, armored personel carriers, or assault rifles.

That said, it seems to me that- as usual- Ben Stein has some wise words for us on the Sandy Hook tragedy.

My reply to the oft-repeated aphorism that "guns don't kill people; people kill people" is that while this is true, guns do make it a hell of a lot easier. Nevertheless, the Leftist fantasy that evil can be legislated away- that guns, rather than the evil that inhabits the human heart and permeates our nature are the real villians at Sandy Hook or Columbine or any other place where our fallen species displays its propensity for violence- needs to be challenged as the delusion it is.

Yes, it would be a great deal harder to kill people if it were not for the private ownership of guns. But on the other hand, Tim McVeigh didn't use a gun. Neither did Mohammed Atta and company.

I think that outlawing fertilizer and box cutters, or even airliners, would also be missing the point. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be wary about people who buy large quantities of fertilizer, carry box cutters onto airplanes, or learn to do everything necessary for the normal piloting of an airliner except land it.

On the other hand, only the willfully deluded seriously believe that the Newtown tragedy or the Columbine debacle or JFK's assassination could have been carried out with knives.


Popular Posts