Why should anyone be allowed to buy a crate full of rifles at a gun show without submitting to a criminal background check?
Why should someone be allowed to drink alcohol while openly carrying a gun?
Why should a gunowner be allowed to buy a 20-round magazine?
It's hard to come up with rational arguments in favor of any of those positions, but the number and creativity of irrational arguments can't be appreciated without a visit to the legislative subcommittee that blocks common-sense public safety measures every year.
And this year was no different. Consider these:
Representatives for gun rights groups argued that without the convenience of gun shows, criminals will resort to organizing swap meets at McDonald's restaurants.
They noted that without access to firearms, mentally deranged people will resort to making napalm bombs, igniting gasoline and using box cutters and maybe even "the jawbone of an ass" when they go on killing sprees.
They suggested the high-capacity magazine used by the Tucson gunman actually made it easier for a bystander to grab it out of his hands, after he'd already fired all 31 bullets.
Besides, another explained, killers limited to smaller magazines would become more efficient and better shots, leading to even greater bloodshed.
Perhaps the five legislators on the panel recognized how ridiculous those claims are. But if that's the case, why did they kill a bill that would require background checks for all purchasers at gun shows?
Why did they kill a bill prohibiting alcohol consumption for anyone carrying a gun?
Why did they kill a bill banning the sale of magazines that hold 20 or more rounds of ammunition?
Because, as one lawmaker explained, if gun-control advocates get their way just once, they'll keep coming back asking for more and more restrictions.
If they are allowed to take away 20-round magazines, pretty soon they'll come after box cutters, the ingredients used to make napalm and, possibly, even jawbones.
That's a slippery slope too dangerous to contemplate.
