And those of us on the other side of the Second Amendment divide might just thank you for it. Eugene Volokh makes the case:
A commenter on a recent thread asked — seemingly from a pro-gun-control perspective — “Why can’t guns be treated like cars, regulated and available, only to those who demonstrate competence and compliance with laws?” That is a perfect excuse for me to reprise my analysis of the guns-cars analogy. Cars are basically regulated as follows (I rely below on California law, but to my knowledge the rules are similar throughout the country):
There follows a list based on California automotive law that includes 1) no federal licensing or registration, 2) no license of any kind needed for use on private property, 3) any adult may obtain license from age 16 by passing a simple test, 4) state licenses are recognized in all 50 states, etc.
Now I suspect that many gun control advocates would in reality prefer a much more onerous system of regulations for guns than for cars. Of course, one can certainly argue that guns should be regulated more heavily than cars; thoughtful gun control advocates do indeed do this. But then one should candidly admit that one is demanding specially burdensome regulation for guns — and not claim to be merely asking “why can’t guns be treated like cars?”
Kinda puts it in perspective, doesn’t it? The fascist Left doesn’t really want to “regulate” firearms, it wants to get rid of them. Maybe it’s time to call their bluff.