Nicely balanced until the very end, when he goes off the rails about "high" capacity magazines.

A loss of rights is a loss of liberty.

I don't care if it makes irrational lefties "feel" better. If you want to "feel" better, get a sex toy.

when he goes off the rails about "high" capacity magazines.
completely agree. I could really care less about "making lefties feel good", in particular when even the admit it wouldn't make any difference.

"Movement Conservatives"---don't know about this author, but this magazine used to be part of it and still may be---are generally vaguely for us, but are not part of us, and as this article illustrates pretty much just don't "get it".

I'd score this article as rather hostile in tone ("gun-rights faithful" ???) and substance. Especially in the latter, for we hear the constant call for "compromise", but as usual it's never explained exactly what we'd get in return---implicitly I'd assume losing our rights a little more slowly.

I think not....

After two quick readings of it, that's the only policy prescription beyond maintaining the status quo I see him making.

Rather than preemptive surrender, isn't this a time to continue our political offensive? It's not like the mentally disturbed are going to get better care and stop shooting up victim disarmament zones like schools, especially as the press makes such a big deal of them.

However, our friends at the Chicago Sun-Times assure us that Obama is the answer, although it's not entirely clear how.

HT to the WSJ Best of the Web, with special praise for calling it a "frustratingly elliptical column" (search down to "Obama as Inkblot").

- Harold

That piece is just trying to move the debate a few inches to the left.

Has reasoned evidence ever influenced the shreiking whack job lefties?
Has no one besides me noticed that in every one of these shooting cases the perp was under the care of a psychiatrist taking -or recently taken off of- psychiatric drugs?
Given the huge money made by the pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession I'm not surprised how well that angle has been suppressed in the news.

Simply put guys, until we hold those who create the so-called "gun free zones" accountable, either through elections and/or tort law, this isn't going to get better. In fact many of our politicos don't want it to get better. They want ANOTHER excuse to disarm us. So, we're left with yet another reason to have shall issue concealed carry become the law of the entire US.

I think that David Hardy is affected by the reasonable tone of the article - and overlooks the outrageous suggestion about magazines. It's an offer to start the discussion by putting hi-caps into NICS. Where would he stop? Would he accept doing that for all magazines?

Adding hi-caps into NICS would add a significant burden to the law-abiding purchaser when acquiring them. If this led to the use of "lo-cap" magazines (e.g. for the common Glock 17, 10 rounds rather than the 17 round capacity mag which fits into the grip) there would be only a small effect on the law-abiding.

But to what purpose? It would also have only a small effect on the criminals. So why do it?