I read blogs that vary among the political possibilities. I read progressives, and liberals, and libertarians, and even a few conservatives. And I'm noticing a lot of bad argument on all sides. But because I'm a pro-abortion woman, today I'm starting with a particular claim by Glenn Reynolds, whose blog is Instapundit.com.
He posted here that he thought the president giving a speech about abortion to Planned Parenthood was bad timing in light of the Gosnell trial. (Gosnell is accused of various criminal acts involving an abortion clinic he ran.) I just don't see why somebody being justly tried on serious accusations of abuse of the law is a restriction on discussing or supporting legal use of that same law. This one person broke the law-what does that have to do with the people who observe the law? Should all abortion clinics be closed because somebody did it wrong, even though it's a perfectly legal medical procedure?
But other people on other issues do it, too. Every crime that includes a gun use becomes a platform for anti-gun-rights people to attack legal observers of the gun laws. I have a concealed handgun license, which I've always believed was at least partial proof that I was a law-abiding person. I went to the trouble of paying the fee, taking the class, being fingerprinted (like a criminal) and having my background checked. I carry a license with my photo and other information on it, even when I'm not exercising my right to concealed carry. I don't confuse it with a license to do just anything--it's a concealed handgun license, not a license to carry a knife or a rifle or a bomb. And there are laws (that I learned in the class) about appropriate use of a gun that restrict me even though I have a concealed handgun license.
Most of the people who commit crimes with guns aren't abiding by the gun laws in the first place, and then they use their illegally-acquired guns to commit other crimes. Changing the gun laws will not stop them-they're already breaking the laws we already have.
Hard cases make bad laws. There should be more reason for changing a law than that somebody broke it and then caused horrific injury and death. After all, THEY BROKE THE LAW ALREADY. Why wouldn't they just break whatever new law is passed?
He posted here that he thought the president giving a speech about abortion to Planned Parenthood was bad timing in light of the Gosnell trial. (Gosnell is accused of various criminal acts involving an abortion clinic he ran.) I just don't see why somebody being justly tried on serious accusations of abuse of the law is a restriction on discussing or supporting legal use of that same law. This one person broke the law-what does that have to do with the people who observe the law? Should all abortion clinics be closed because somebody did it wrong, even though it's a perfectly legal medical procedure?
But other people on other issues do it, too. Every crime that includes a gun use becomes a platform for anti-gun-rights people to attack legal observers of the gun laws. I have a concealed handgun license, which I've always believed was at least partial proof that I was a law-abiding person. I went to the trouble of paying the fee, taking the class, being fingerprinted (like a criminal) and having my background checked. I carry a license with my photo and other information on it, even when I'm not exercising my right to concealed carry. I don't confuse it with a license to do just anything--it's a concealed handgun license, not a license to carry a knife or a rifle or a bomb. And there are laws (that I learned in the class) about appropriate use of a gun that restrict me even though I have a concealed handgun license.
Most of the people who commit crimes with guns aren't abiding by the gun laws in the first place, and then they use their illegally-acquired guns to commit other crimes. Changing the gun laws will not stop them-they're already breaking the laws we already have.
Hard cases make bad laws. There should be more reason for changing a law than that somebody broke it and then caused horrific injury and death. After all, THEY BROKE THE LAW ALREADY. Why wouldn't they just break whatever new law is passed?