You would never have thought it would come here. Kentucky has remained comfortably insulated from the wild, wild left. Democrat in registration yes, but we are conservative, family oriented, faith based people who were quite confident that gun control was somebody else's problem, never to be ours. Think again.
State representative Kathy Stine from Lexington says that a Courier Journal poll gives her hope that some gun control measures might make it here. That poll reportedly found that 65 percent of Kentuckians favor gun registration and a majority were in favor of limits on how much ammunition people could buy online.
Couple this recent report with the stance of the Kentucky Catholic Conference which supports gun control measures expected to be introduced in the Kentucky house and suddenly what you thought was just the crazy notion of Mayor Bloomberg and Diane Feinstein is filling the air in Frankfort like a big production day at Buffalo Trace.
But the poll also said that 60% of Kentuckians felt that the right to own a gun was more important that gun control laws. Obviously the poll data is far from compelling evidence that gun control measures would receive favorable treatment in Kentucky.
But that's not why these facts are important. Strict gun control measures in Kentucky are not likely this year, or next. But what is likely is that discussing the issue while using euphemisms will act as subtle persuasion to increase the numbers and provide more cover for those who favor stricter gun laws.
Take for example the willingness of people to favor closing the "gun show loophole". Sounds good, sounds innocent enough, in fact, because it's called a "loophole" it must be some sneaky way to violate the law, right? Wrong.
There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole", there is no problem of any significance at gun shows with criminals or crazies buying up guns. The phrase is a euphemism for the desire of some big government types to convince the public that your private transfer of a shotgun to your grandson should receive government scrutiny. It's the catchy phrase of gun control advocates which describes the prohibition against you trading your old .22 rifle to your buddy for his tree stand. It's the sing song way in which those who want to eventually nudge you toward registration get to find out how many guns you own before they place a limit on ownership.
Gun shows are where licensed dealers set up to sell and in all of those transactions a full, federal background check is done. The very few individuals selling a scant few weapons between each other is not a problem and talk about closing a "loophole" seeks to regulate far more than gun shows.
And the notion that a gun which can hold nine cartridges is far safer than one which can hold ten is simply moronic. I know people who are very well trained in tactical shooting who can replace a magazine in a second or two and with 10 magazines on their body could have over 100 shots available when needed. How would limiting them to 90 make any difference?
This whole conversation should end. There is only one permit needed for your right to keep and bear arms and it is the Second Amendment. It wasn't put there to let you hunt. It was put there to let citizens amass an armory in order to defend themselves, their families, their communities and our nation if the need ever arose.
The fact that a nut can get a gun is no more reason to infringe upon those rights as the fact that a burglar can still break into your house despite laws against burglary and the possession of burglary tools.
The people of Kentucky need to make their voices heard loudly, and clearly. We will not tolerate any attempt to infringe upon our constitutionally protected rights, no matter which way the whims of idiocy blow.
Comments