Another Incremental Attack on the 2nd Amendment

The Norwich Bulletin editorial titled “Gun Safety Merits Hearing at State Level” (09/15/2006) contained some errors but the gist was unmistakable. It is evident that the Bulletin is fervently opposed to the Second Amendment. When blatant frontal attacks on the rights of citizens to bear arms fail, all good socialists resort to incremental methods to attain their goals.

One line in the Bulletin editorial sums the stand of that publication. That sentence reads, “The wonder is the state has not stepped up already to regulate the discharge of firearms”. The next line in the editorial exposes the typical socialist paternal attitude that citizens are incapable of self-rule. That sentence reads, “This is an issue of safety and common sense.” The Bulletin, typical of most media believes the public, and gun owners in particular, do not have enough common sense to act safely in any matter.

The primary “fear” of those opposed to the original proposal is not the confiscation of guns. Confiscation is too blatant and the left wing “Cookie Cutter” Democrats know that. Their strategy is to incrementally restrict the possession and use of firearms to the point where ownership and use becomes impractical if not impossible.

As stated in the Bulletin editorial, State Representative Kevin Ryan intends to assemble "the stakeholders", police, public safety officials, sportsmen's groups and members of the NRA to discuss a law that would outlaw the discharge of firearms within 500 feet of a building housing people, pets or livestock.

Although the National Rifle Association (NRA) regards him favorably, Mr. Ryan is an unknown quantity. Once introduced into the legislative process, and out of Mr. Ryan’s purview, the “Cookie Cutter” Democrats controlling the Connecticut Legislature will turn even his most well intentioned proposal into the most restrictive and expensive law possible.

The Bulletin editorialized earlier that not all gun owners are as skilled with firearms as are members of the NRA and stated that the point is central to the argument. That statement is one of the few accurate proclamations in the Bulletin’s editorial history. However, there are numerous existing laws to cover intentional or negligent behavior involving firearms. No new laws regarding the use of firearms are necessary.

At the risk of being reasonable, the following suggestion is offered. Rather than restrict the use of firearms, why not have legislation that specifies requirements for safe target ranges regardless of the location. No such regulation currently exists in Connecticut. Constructing the directive would be easy using the resources of local and national target ranges, target shooting organizations, and the NRA.

Perhaps Mr. Ryan would consider that alternative rather than letting the cookie cutters impose more draconian restrictions on the possession and use of firearms in Connecticut.

Reference:
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060915/OPINION01/609150317/1014/OPINION