It ought to be pretty obvious from the above that not only is the debate not over, we even have a debate about what it is the debate about. There seem to be a determined preconception on the part of the “cold dead hands” set that anyone who thinks that there ought to be some regulation of firearms in intent on general disarmament of the civilian population --the mantra is gun control advocates want to ban guns. It has been bald faced so asserted in this thread. The mantra has been repeated again and again in nearly every popular hunting and fishing magazine I see at the local barber shop. It is howled from the publications of the NRA and from their speakers platform. It is, of course a gross misstatement of what responsible gun control people have argued for and is likewise a misstatement of the position taken by gun control people on this board. Don’t let that stop anyone, however. As we have all seen before it is much more satisfying to take pot shots at a straw man than to deal with a live target. Only this evening the national network news gave me a four second sound bite of Charlton Heston (and all sympathy and good wishes to the poor man, what is likely to happen to him and his family should not happen to anyone) waiving what looked like a Hawkins cap and ball rifle and intoning “my cold dead hands.”
Ultimately the debate is political and being political big money (i.e., gun and ammo manufacturers and distributors) will prevail until a crises arises that convinces the general electorate that some steps must be taken to keep the most dangerous and deadly sorts of guns out of irresponsible hands. Sooner or later that day will come. Polemics about supposed Constitutional rights and defense of the home and pretended historical traditions may delay that day, but just a surely as the sun rise and the tide flows the day will come that hand guns are licensed and magazine capacity is restricted.
