You must have noticed by now that when something is widely popular, it is sacrosanct, untouchable within broad limits, interference with which would be courageous. When something is less popular, any substantial opponents can wreak havoc with your freedom.OneGun wrote:Since when did criminals bother to break the law LEGALLY?
What I find interesting is that when a drunk driver kills people, the politicians blame the driver. When a person kills people with a gun, politicians blame the gun.
It is a good thing I have a good relationship with my guns. I don't worry that they will turn on me behind my back.
An example I have frequently used is radio antennas vs. home swimming pools. Radio amateurs are a tiny minority, so have relatively little power or influence and when someone gets their nose out of joint, or economics is involved, it is easy to restrict antennas in awkward and onerous ways. There are very, very few injuries and almost no deaths from these antennas. Home swimming pools, OTOH, are quite popular, widely desired, and no office holder would dream of banning swimming pools, despite the hideous number of tragic deaths, particularly to children in home swimming pools.
Guns are an example of the former, with relatively few, perhaps a bit eccentric, users. Automobiles, OTOH, are ubiquitous, and driving is seen as a right, contrary to the DMVs around the country which officially persist in the absurd notion that it is a privilege. The number of deaths and injuries from automobile misuse is staggering, but nothing will be done to interfere with the universal right to own and operate an automobile.
"Controversial" to a politician means it will cost you votes. "Courageous" means it will cost you the election.