My Argument for Others to Reconsider What is AcceptableSubmitted by dice on Fri, 01/11/2013 - 10:47
I heard an interview weeks ago on MSNBC I think, in which a guest following in the footsteps of Edward Bernays, stated plainly that "gun-control" is a term too abrasive to be accepted by the armed general public. He believed other progressives should be using the phrase, "Common Sense Gun Laws" instead.
Because, who could argue with that?
[If you're unfamiliar with the situation in Bahrain, don't feel bad. There is a concerted effort on behalf of many to keep you from finding out. But it's not so important to understand that for this post. What is relevant is the people are getting tired of their oppressive government.]
The rate of private gun ownership in Bahrain is 24.82 firearms per 100 people or an estimated total of 180,000. 
Both the police and the military combined have only 19,600.
AND they have 'common sense gun laws.'
The state controls and tracks ALL weapon transactions made by civilians.
These numbers are mostly circa 2007 but still perfectly relevant. They do not include massive purchases that have recently taken place to further arm the government of Bahrain in response to the protests.
My purpose isn't to illuminate the situation in Bahrain as horrid as it is. It is to question the purpose of any law restricting ownership or monitoring gun sales.
If you believe there should be mental health screening, I would ask that view this before you make up your mind.
If you believe felons shouldn't have guns, I would ask 1) does breaking the law revoke your natural right to defend yourself and your property and 2) is it effective in stopping criminals or registering people who may not be concealing?
If you believe fully automatic weapons do not belong in the hands of civilians, I would ask you 1) who ought to decide what is appropriate fire power in the defense of liberty and property and 2) has it not created the precedent that has allowed them the ground they've taken and plan to take?
If you believe you should have to ask permission from the local PD to carry concealed, I would ask you 1) why should the law abiding citizen be required pay a fee to protect himself against those have no regard for the law and 2) as with Katrina, is it prudent aid and simplify the process of confiscation should it occur?
What does Bahrain have to do with 'common sense gun legislation?' It's simple;
- Cui bono?
The government or the people?
I know I'm in the minority even among gun owners when I say this but 'common sense gun laws' do not exist.