In an column published by Joanna Weiss, the liberal writer is upset because the anti-gun forces can’t act like the SS, knocking on doors and checking homes to see where guns are being stored.
Here’s a summary of what happened, as far as I can gather, at last week’s meeting of the Swampscott Board of Selectmen:
Selectman A: Hey, there’s a state law that requires guns to be locked in safes. But how can we enforce it? Is there any way to do legal home inspections?
Selectman B: Hmm, that would probably violate the Constitution. We’d better ask our lawyer.
Selectman A: OK, let’s have him get back to us.
(Several hours pass)
Internet: LIBERAL MASSACHUSETTS POLITICIANS ARE GOING TO KNOCK DOWN OUR DOORS AND TAKE AWAY ALL OF OUR GUNS!
Source: http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/11/17/gun-debate-hate/CWenBvwu84WoVtZvBqJBjO/story.html
I grant you that hyperbole is common online, yet in the same very column, she writes this:
Ryan Calo, a law professor who studies privacy at the University of Washington, said regular home inspections would never hold up. But there might be a way to add gun safes to the list of things checked during legal inspections, such as when people apply to be foster parents. An interesting idea — except that, after the firestorm, Swampscott dropped the issue completely. Ideally, small towns could be a test lab for some of these incremental changes. They could also be a test lab for a reasoned debate.
Two things, Weiss.
1. Small towns are usually more patriotic and pro-gun than big cities like Boston.
2. You just admitted you want armed cops inspecting our guns. Adopting a child or becoming a foster parent is a privilege, owning a gun is a right.
3. You can’t have a reasoned debate with people who call you unreasonable.
I’ve just about given up hope of a constructive conversation about guns on the national level.
That’s because you don’t really want a conversation, that implies an exchange of ideas. The Boston Globe only publishes commentary from people they agree with. “Shut up, do as we say” is not a conversation.
A far more benign statement of opposition came from Jim Wallace, executive director of Massachusetts’ Gun Owners Action League, who usually does a good job of leading reasoned conversation. But even Wallace defended the paranoia.
“This selectman doesn’t understand the amount of persecution that gun owners have gone through in Massachusetts in the last 15 years,” Wallace told me. “It’s a very touchy subject.”
To some degree, he has a point. Massachusetts has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and some of the provisions should give everybody pause: If you got arrested for a bar fight as a teenager, you’re barred from getting a gun license when you’re 70. The gun licensing system is riddled with inefficiencies and technological problems. And yes, you can find people who want to ban guns outright.
Exactly! Yet is part of the conservation changing Massachusetts law so a 70-year-old won’t be denied of his Second Amendment rights? No, you know it’s not.
Frankly, I don’t see what exactly is there to talk about. Criminals do what they want, yet the “conversation” Weiss wants to have isn’t about fighting real crimes but victimless crimes like not leaving your gun in a safe.
So here’s an idea, Weiss, ask your bosses at the Boston Globe to support ideological diversity, invite some pro-gun people to respond your columns with columns instead of letters to the editor that probably won’t be published.
Otherwise, stop pretending you want to talk to us.