One will most often find gun control supporters employing the argument-of-straw that supposes the gun rights movement favors a paradigm of zero restrictions when it comes to firearm ownership. While there are those who would state that the 2nd Amendment is the only firearm license required by the US Constitution, the would-be controllers willfully ignore that the NRA was/is a huge supporter of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS] and Project Exile.
I probably don't need to rehash previous logic based remonstrations against the rhetoric the gun control lobby invents ["high-capacity", "assault rifle", etc..], nor the petulant tirades that project a desire for violent criminal acts on the gun rights movement, in response to us acting as a bulwark against legislation that would not prevent such acts.....and infringe on a Constitutional right.
TTAG has an illuminating exchange between it's publisher and USA Today that speaks well of this logical disconnect on the behalf of the controllers:
When USA Today contacted me to write an editorial I asked the Gannet guy why his employer stopped using the term “gun control.” Why’d they adopted the language of the civilian disarmament industry (see what I did there?) and substituted the term “gun safety”? He didn’t miss a beat. “The words ‘gun control’ come with a lot of baggage,” he declared. “So does the term ‘gun safety,’” I countered. “It indicates a clear bias for gun control.” “We are biased,” he admitted. “We’re in favor of it. That’s why we use the term ‘gun safety.’” Bonus points for honesty, I guess. Only USA Today doesn’t restrict their Orwellian language choice to the editorial page. And I didn’t become an OCD gun blogger by leaving well enough alone . . .
Please read the rest