"Controlling Guns" in any way, shape, or form will not protect our children. We must reject any steps in that direction. Coulter is correct whether you like her or not (and please do not start down that path), as are many other commentators.I am only seeing a fight that is doing nothing to protect our children. We need to find some common ground to begin a "helpful" discussion. JMHO
Why Not Renew the “Assault Weapons” Ban? Well, I’ll Tell You… « Kontradictions
Harden the schools, have armed guards, allow legal CHL in schools by anyone with a CHL, and remove the idiotic "Gun Free Zones". Those four steps which are easy and economical, only require political will. That will protect our schools.
That is a SOLUTION. Anything requiring gun control is a fallacy of false choice posited as an argument of moderation.
Start with the proposition that guns cannot be eliminated in total (which given there are over 300 million or so floating around is reasonable and moderate)(and not using Mexico, etc. as an example unless you want to confound the reader) and force them to develop a solution absent a total ban on guns. That is a common ground.
There are over 6,500 Blog entries on the WSJ article on the NRA, and every one one of the Anti-2A posts either assumes a complete gun ban, relies on a complete gun ban, is a step towards a complete gun ban (e.g. a "registry, which by the way does nothing pro-active), or is an ad hominem attack or an emotional penalty box whine. They cannot formulate a rational solution, and it totally flummoxes the anti-2A.
As HotGuns states repeatedly "It's not about the guns. It's about control". Remember that. It is about control, nothing more, nothing less.
The Bloomberg 32 OZ Slurpee Fallacy.