Monday, March 30, 2009
I got a letter from Sen. John Cornyn today, thanking me for contacting him about firearms issues.
Probably to urge him to vote against some liberal scheme designed to take away our icky, scary guns that can cause boo boos. Or blow up cars with one shot, depending on who you ask.
It contained troubling verbiage such as "It is essential to safeguard the law-abiding citizen's constitutional right to own and use firearms designed for legitimate purposes such as hunting, target shooting, collecting, and self protection."
I'd like to remove that bit about "designed for legitimate purposes". I'm going to ask the fine Senator from Texas (and a Republican) what a gun designed for an illegitimate purpose might look like. This is a very slippery slope. Don't give the other side any leeway! They will exploit it relentlessly, heedless of facts.
It's also not very well thought out, because if you're "collecting" then that's all the legitimate purpose you would need for ANY firearm. Ergo, if collecting is a legitimate purpose then the firearms designed for illegitimate purposes (which I'd like to see) would be allowed under the auspices of collecting.
Finally, that language also smells a bit like pandering to the gun control crowd. If I were a politician, I could then say "See, I'm in favor of firearms for *legitimate* purposes, so you can work with me not against me."
Hopefully that's just smokescreen so the libs will leave him alone.
Having now typed some legal-like gobbledygook, I will now retire to clinging to my gun and Bible.
Disclaimer: I'm happy the senator is pro-gun, but as a Republican from Texas, how could you not be? He has my support.