Here is the pertinent part of the commentary (emphasis added by me). Only FS has commented on the editorial although she certainly gave ample evidence of her ideological purity in her response. And, no, I am not concerned about being shot in a mall, but thank you for thinking of my safety!
For those of you that are committed to the 2nd Amendment, can you accept the contentions highlighted in red? For those of you who are generally supporters of gun control legislation accept the contentions highlighted in green?
"Whether a right to individual gun ownership can be found in the Second Amendment or not, the perception of that right is so deeply ingrained that legal theory is -- here's that word again -- superfluous. Do you really think, regardless of what the court rules, it would be possible to ban firearms on a national scale? I think any attempt to do so would lead to uprisings we can scarcely imagine.
What we have here, then, is another case of theory versus reality. It's a confrontation that did not have to happen.
The problem with this debate is that it has always been defined by its most extreme voices, its most uncompromising, ideologically pure voices.But what if gun-control advocates got over the idea that getting the right ruling from the right court would magically make guns disappear? And what if gun advocates got over the notion that every attempt at firearms regulation is a step toward totalitarianism? Where might this debate go then?
What if supporters of gun control could concede that hunting is, for some, an honored tradition? That some people feel it necessary to have a weapon at home for protection? That some entirely rational folks simply like guns?
Could gun-rights people then concede that you don't need an assault weapon to go deer hunting? And that manufacturers who flood poor, violence-prone neighborhoods with cheap handguns ought to be held accountable? And that guys who sell guns from the trunks of their cars are nobody's friend? And that background checks and gun-safety classes for new gun owners make us all safer? And that gun registration isn't totalitarianism any more than a driver's license is? And, most of all, that all of us are tired of seeing children shoot children with guns they never should have had access to?
It's called compromise and, no, it would hardly mollify ideological purists. It would not make guns disappear, or acknowledge an individual right to bazooka ownership. What it would do, though, is recognize that ideological purity has its limits. That's a good thing to remember.
When theory confronts reality, put your money on reality every time."
