Reply #10: Didn't click on the blog spam link...

[Atypical Liberal]

I don't think his being a lawyer has anything to do with it. Nor do I think the "silencer" is important in the story. Mr. Barrett is a good example of what I call "the hidden criminals."

No, Mr. Barrett is a good example of an actual criminal. Nothing hidden or gray about it.

The way it works is this. Among gun owners you've got the law abiding, the criminal and a very large gray area in between. This Venn Diagram doesn't show the right proportions, but it gives you an idea, which works like this.

1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.
2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.
3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified.
4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.
5. anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated.

Yes, it is quite true that if you have not been convicted of a crime or have a restraining order against you, you can't loose your second amendment rights over it.

It is illegal for users of illegal drugs to own firearms, though it should not be.

Yes, it is true that you can still own guns even if you have had a negligent discharge or if you are old or disabled.

What's your opinion? Why do you think law-abiding and responsible gun owners who truly fit into category B become so defensive and antagonistic about this? Group B, law-abiding gun owners, although the smallest of the groups, still accounts for many, many individuals. I have nothing but respect for them and cannot understand why they aren't on the front lines of gun control activism along with us. They would be the biggest winners.

First they came for the other guys, and I said nothing because I wasn't one of the other guys...