Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Grrrr.

Tommy Denton, on Sunday past, had an editorial in the Roanoke bird-cage liner.

In it, he comes out in favor of ....
Be clear: I do not advocate the "outlawing" of firearms. I understand and accept the disciplined practices of hunting and sport shooting. I do advocate a strengthening of restrictions on the proliferation primarily of handguns, through requiring a state-approved purchase permit, periodic relicensing to demonstrate proficiency and safety awareness, and registration through a law-enforcement agency. These seem reasonable conditions for a civilized society to impose in the interest of public safety.


I wrote him at tommy.denton@roanoke.com and told him that:
Be clear, I do not advocate the "outlawing" of writing instruments. I understand and accept the disciplined practices of penmanship and letter writing. I do advocate a strengthening of restrictions on the proliferation, primarily of journalists, through requiring a state-approved competence permit, periodic licensing to demonstrate proficiency and public policy awareness and registration through a law-enforcement agency. These seem reasonable restrictions for a civilized society to impose in the interests of public safety.


Tommy Denton is an idiot.

The inestimable Mrs. duToit has struck a nerve:
Over 30 human beings have been added to the death toll, caused by gun control, and your side’s continued efforts to turn America into a nation of victims, instead of a nation of responsible adults. On the contrary, anyone who watched the events in Virginia and thinks that one more law would have made a difference is delusional.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mrs duToit is a genius.

Anonymous said...

Should we treat practitioners of the First Amendment the same way we treat guardians of the Second? Recall if you will that the Constitution does not grant rights via those amendments; rather, it acknowledges pre-existing rights, and it lays out a specific method of Amending the Constitution, which does not provde for abrogating any of those rights. Nor does it grant any power to Congress or anyone else to pass a law violating or changing the Constitution. "It is elementary law that every statute is to be read in the light of the constitution. However broad and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach." [McCullough v.Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (1898)] What this means is that any attempt to deprive a citizen of rights is itself a crime. Therefore, anyone who supports such an effort is, in the eyes of the law, an accessory to the crime. At least, that's how Webster and I read the pertinent docs.