In response to:

Let’s Have That Conversation About Guns

Francis W. Porretto Wrote: Dec 18, 2012 7:05 AM
I contend that those "unintended consequences" are in fact intended -- indeed, they're the point of the push for criminalization of private firearms ownership. Such laws wouldn't disarm criminals, and they wouldn't disarm the State. Ask yourself: To whom would disarmed private citizens turn for protection from criminals -- and what would the State demand of us in return -- and what power would we have to resist its demands?

For once I agree with liberals. It’s high time to have a conversation about guns. Let’s start with the problem that there are far too few guns on our streets.

Wait, we can’t have that conversation. In fact, we’re not supposed to have what people might commonly describe as a “conversation” at all. We’re supposed to shut-up and listen as liberals, barely masking their unseemly delight at the opportunity, try to pin the murder rampage of one degenerate creep on millions of law-abiding Americans who did nothing wrong. The conversation is then supposed to end with us waiving our fundamental right...