In the wake of the Newtown tragedy I have tried to follow some of the discussions about possible solutions. In many, probably most instances I have seen comments about how liberals want to take away guns.
In my own comments in these conversations I generally preface them with a statement that we would be better off if there were no guns, or at least no handguns and no semi-automatic weapons that can hold more than seven rounds. This would hardly end violence, but it would make mass killings more difficult and would go some distance toward reducing gun deaths.
But then I go on to say I believe taking away guns or certain types of guns is a practical impossibility. Only a willful misreading of my comments would cause one to think I support taking anyone's guns away. And i believe no one else has suggested taking anyone's guns away. But that is what many, many gun rights advocates say that liberals are saying.
Which shows that a reasonable discussion is not possible, because gun rights advocates will actually lie, not to mention refusing to compromise in any real way.
And there is one other thing I want to take note of. The NRA is calling for a national database of the mentally ill. As I recall, the NRA has successfully fought against a national database of gun owners. I suppose the notion is that of "good" people versus "bad" people. However, the practical effect is to protect "straw" buyers, making it difficult to track guns that have found their way into the hands of criminals.
So you tell me, is the NRA being hypocritical, in both philosophical and real terms?