Don’t debate with gun cliches

I agree with Dan Walters’ assessment that Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom is more concerned about getting himself in front of the camera than substantive issues (“Newsom’s derivative symbolism,” Nov. 2). He is young, attractive and ambitious, so I’m sure he has grand plans for his political future. However, I am dismayed that Mr. Walters relies on the tired trope, “As with other gun-control measures, the law-abiding would obey them and law-breakers and the deranged would ignore them.”

Why is this argument trotted out only for gun-control laws? A similar argument could be made about virtually every law we pass. “Why regulate speed limits? Only the law-abiding obey them, while law-breakers and the deranged ignore them.” So we maintain a system of peace officers to catch the law-breakers! What a concept.

By definition, those who do not obey laws are “law-breakers.” Law-breakers exist. But that is an insufficient reason to stop trying to regulate bad behavior.

The counter-argument, of course, is that restricting constitutionally-protected behavior is different. Indeed, it is. But neither ammunition nor large capacity magazines are guaranteed by the Second Amendment, only arms for a well-regulated militia.

This story was originally published November 6, 2015 at 10:25 AM with the headline "Don’t debate with gun cliches."