I'm about convinced that a ban on gun ownership would work. Just one thing....

I'm about to be convinced that the liberals/Democrats/socialists who want to ban private gun ownership are right.

I mean, I realize the second amendment appears to give citizens the right to keep and bear arms, but the amendment's authors prolly didn't really mean that to be taken literally.  They probably just meant it as some kind of metaphor.  Yeah, that's probably it.

And surely none of the founders could have imagined gangs of heavily-armed, drug-pushing low-lifes running our biggest cities, killing innocent kids in drive-by shootings. And I'm sure they didn't consider the possibility of teen suicide by gun, or accidents.

So on balance I'm about ready to agree that guns oughta be banned.

Just show me one thing and I'll sign off:  Libs tell us passing laws banning private gun ownership will prevent all those deaths of innocents.  (As Barry says, "If we can save just one child....")  But before we ban guns, why not try banning some other deadly scourge first and see if it actually works?

Guns at least have some utility for honest, law-abiding citizens.  Most street drugs don't.  So why not pass a law banning the possession and sale of street drugs first, and see if that puts an end to drug-related crimes and drug deaths?

What?  You say street drugs are *already* illegal??

Gedouttahere!  You mean we still have billions of dollars of drug-related robberies and thefts, and thousands of deaths by drug overdose every year despite a ban on the possession and sale of illegal drugs??

Wow, that's...so totally unexpected.

Wait...I think I may have a clue to the reason:  Seems to me that Democrats pushing to ban private gun ownership are implicitly making the crucial assumption that criminals would respect a law banning guns even though they completely ignore other laws.

Hmmmm...  Could it be that key assumption is wrong??