When Common Sense Isn't

As the debate on gun control rages on, the normal Leftist practice of choosing a small number of misleading by emotionally powerful phrases to sway public opinion is in full force.

There are two Democratic themes that have caught my attention.

"These are common sense measures that will save lives".

"Who could possibly need military-style weapons and hundred-round magazines?"

Common Sense?  How do we measure common sense?  The Left has always believed that the only thing the country needs to solve all problems is to put them in charge.  So a crazy kid breaks out his mother's guns and goes on a rampage, taking out his dear mother first.  Then the common sense Left says, "If only his mother didn't have the guns, none of that would have happened".

Let's compare their solutions to the Newtown disaster.  Would the shooting have been avoided if the AR-15 rifle was banned?  No.  The shooter would have used the pistol or another "legal" rifle.

Would the shooting have been avoided if 100-round magazines were banned?  No.  The kid didn't even have one of those.

At the same time, all these "common sense" liberals completely ignore the factor all mass shootings have in common - mentally disturbed young men on psychotropic drugs.

Mr. President, if you call that common sense, I'm afraid to hear what you'd consider stupid or misguided.  Oh wait - you think the idea of staffing armed security as a deterrent to these mass shooters is stupid and misguided.

So let me get this straight:  A flipped-out young man steals some guns and goes to shoot as many people as he can in a school, movie theatre, or shopping mall.  You think the common sense idea is to pass laws that make sure nobody in that public place is allowed to carry a weapon, so the number of people Mr. Crazy kills is limited only by the number of minutes it takes for the Police to arrive and subdue him.  I think the better idea is that there's an armed security person, and/or some legally armed private citizens present in the venue.  When Mr. Crazy arrives, the armed citizens are able to take him down as soon as he raises his illegally obtained firearm to shoot someone.

Which scenario sounds more like common sense?  I suppose it depends on whether or not someone actually has enough common sense to recognize it.

I've come to understand that the Left's strategy all hangs on incrementalism.  If you listen for only a few minutes to a Leftist gun control advocate, he'll tell you what he really wants - a complete and total ban on the ability of private citizens to own a firearm of any type.  But the Left knows they can't impose that all at once, because people will rise up against them. 

So just like Obamacare, they pass laws that just put us on the path to their eventual goal.  Obamacare is merely a waystation on the way to complete government control and operation of everybody's healthcare.  Selective banning of certain scary-looking rifles and high capacity ammunition magazines is likewise a waystation along the way to a total gun ban.

I think the legislation will fail.  But only this time.  Like Gay Marriage failed initially.  But the Left never gives up on their priorities.  We've got maybe 10 years, maybe less, before they succeed.  Their success will be achieved by fooling enough of those people Rush Limbaugh calls "Low Information Voters", appealing to their emotions to sell their Big Brother message.  "Don't worry, we'll protect you".

Sure, all  the way to the Gulags.