I should clarify. SOME gun control advocates scare the willies out of me. There are many who simply do not understand much about guns, or realize just how many of their friends and neighbors are safe and responsible gun owners. Their problem is mainly a lack of understanding. They're also the kind of people who actually start to like guns (or at least think they're not so bad) if someone takes them out to the range and shows them how to safely use one. Because it's fun to shoot.

Then there are people like Des Moines Register columnist Donald Kaul, who in one breath in a recent editorial decry the lack of reasonable debate on important issues, and in the next advocate for extreme violence against those who disagree with them. This is sadly not an uncommon characteristic among liberals. And to be fair, there are many conservatives that fall prey as well. You can find the editorial here, but I have reprinted it below with my comments interspersed.

Kaul: Nation needs a new agenda on guns

This time, the debate has to be about more than not offending the NRA's sensibilities.

I’m glad I retired five months ago.

Think of it: I was spared writing about the presidential election, an event so vacuous it made reality TV seem interesting. If there was any serious discussion of an important national issue — global warming, obesity, transportation policy, the morality of drone attacks on civilian populations, the environmental consequences of fracking, existential implications of the designated hitter — I missed it.

We agree here. The presidential race was particularly vacuous this go around. The democrats stuck to their status quo, and the republicans scrambled to find someone they thought could beat it. As I've said before, it's just our dumb luck that the worst president in history won re-election because the other party failed to nominate a candidate worth voting for. We seem to disagree on what should be considered important national issues. There are a few dozen issues higher up on my list than most of those he mentioned.

Instead, we got a campaign of misrepresentations, exaggerations and outright lies. The Republicans were by far the worst offenders, but President Barack Obama didn’t cover himself in glory either.

Glad to see he's not just outright kissing Obama's boots, but I'd say both major parties were pretty much equally terrible. I didn't vote for either of those clowns, and for once, my conscience is clear about my vote.

I was happy with the result of the presidential election, but I didn’t regret not covering it. And I was entirely content to go on not writing about things. (If I could make a living at that, life would be perfect.)

Oh, but you can! It's called getting a different job. I tried it once when I could no longer stand doing what I was doing. So far it's working out great.

But then Newtown happened. A misanthropic young man who never seemed particularly violent killed his mother then broke into an elementary school and massacred little kids, teachers and the principal.

Terrible tragedy

And the very air changed. The holiday season suddenly turned somber. You looked at the small children around you differently, as fragile, precious gifts to be cherished and, above all, protected.
Obama struck that note in his moving speech at the memorial service. Speaking for us all, he said: “We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change.”
Nice words, but somehow not enough. Not nearly enough.

Nice words, but not particularly moving either.

That’s when I figured I should write a column about it. During my 50-year career, every time some demented soul would take a semiautomatic gun and clean out a post office, a school or a picnic, I’d get up on my soap box and let loose with a withering diatribe about guns, the National Rifle Association and weak-kneed politicians. Did it about 75 times, give or take.

... I just don't have much response to this, other than to say that blaming a gun for creating a lunatic is about equivalent to blaming a scalpel for creating a surgeon. Both are tools that save lives when used properly by people with training, or do great damage when used by someone with ill intent.

And in every case the main effect was a spike in gun sales.

I doubt your little editorials had any effect on gun sales. I think most of those people went out and bought guns because they a) feared people like you deciding they should not be allowed to buy tools to protect themselves (aka, get it while the getting's good) or b) didn't have a means to protect themselves and woke up to the reality that they are responsible for their own safety. No one else is going to protect them. The job of the police is to investigate crime after it has happened. They have absolutely no duty to protect you as an individual. At least, that's what the Supreme Court has ruled a couple times.

Still, I thought I’d give it one more shot ... er, chance.

Obama’s speech was fine as far as it went, but it didn’t go very far. Neither have any of the other responses I’ve heard.

I've heard some pretty outrageous suggestions, starting in 3... 2.. 1...

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she was going to introduce a bill to ban the sale and importation of assault weapons. Great, but the bill wouldn’t apply to weapons already out there, and in defining illegal weapons, it listed more than 900 exceptions.

Nine hundred!

Feinstein's original 1994 ban by all accounts had no measurable impact on crime. Namely because the weapons it banned were used in less than 2% of all firearm related homicides. Combine that with the knowledge that firearm crime only accounts for a portion of all violent crime, and it's easy to see why it was worthless. The studies she claims on her website only show increases because they redefined the terms of what qualifies as an "assault weapon". Her new bill is much more restrictive, and those 900 exceptions seem to be its only saving grace. It calls for the registration of all semi-automatic guns as class II NFA items. A process which requires extensive background checks (some 36 pages of paperwork, including mug sho... er, photos and fingerprints), a $200 tax per firearm and registering the serial number in a national database. The NFA system is already in place, and currently for the relatively insignificant number of applications it processes, it takes anywhere between 3 months to over a year to get approval. To process the hundreds of millions of firearms already legally owned as NFA items would necessitate the extreme expansion of the FBI and BATFE just to hire enough people to sift through the paperwork. Add in the extra manpower needed by local and state law enforcement due to the need for their signature on every single application, and you're looking at massive tax increases across the board. Combine that with the loss in revenue and jobs by gun manufacturers laying off large parts of their workforce, and on an economic scale alone, this bill is worthless.

Feinstein's bill (according to her website)

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

120 specifically-named firearms;
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

The last bullet point there basically means "any semiautomatic rifle or handgun" as most have magazines manufactured either by the maker or 3rd party that exceed the 10 round limit. The second bullet point includes things like hand guards, pistol grips, and likely rails for mounting those ever dangerous flashlights and laser sights. Things that are do not effect the function of the gun in any way.

Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:

Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.

We knew she was going to try to close the work-around loopholes this time around. Again, thumbhole stocks have no effect on the function of the firearm. Bullet buttons were a workaround for the previous ban that said you needed to have a tool to remove the magazine from a gun. I have yet to hear of a mass bayoneting happening since the Civil War or so.

Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

A 10 round limit is a completely arbitrary number. It has no basis in any statistical analysis. It's just a number someone made up. Because 12 rounds is scary.

Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:

Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;

Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and

Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.

Grandfathering, but preventing the transfer of. Meaning, because my wife's .22 semi-automatic rifle can accept a 25 round magazine, she won't be able to give it to any of our children or grandchildren in her old age. Meaning this bill is a plan to effectively give a way for the government to legally take away your guns. You just have to die first. That could never be abused, right?

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.

I've already covered this part, so back to Mr. Kaul

The thing missing from the debate so far is anger — anger that we live in a society where something like the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre can happen and our main concern is not offending the NRA’s sensibilities.

Oh no, I'm angry. Believe me, I'm outraged that things like this happen. But banning one tool out of a whole garden shed full of tools is not going to make a difference. The NRA is not just some organization that magically gets its funding and power from nowhere. Millions upon millions of gun owners belong to the NRA and similar organizations because they stand up and speak for them. I know it's hard to believe, Mr. Kaul, but the stance of the NRA comes from its members, not a few people at the top dictating down. People who do not believe in the NRA's mission don't support it. People who do believe in what they do, join. It's that simple.

That’s obscene. Here, then, is my “madder-than-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore” program for ending gun violence in America:

• Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing and more trouble than it’s worth. It offers an absolute right to gun ownership, but it puts it in the context of the need for a “well-regulated militia.” We don’t make our militia bring their own guns to battles. And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.

Now you're making me madder-than-hell. The 2A is not hard to understand at all if you take a minute to think about when and why it was written. The framers of the Constitution had just fought a war for their freedom, and won because everyone had the same weapons as the national army they were fighting against. The 2A is not about muskets or even a National Guard. It is about the people having equal force to oppose anyone who would try to forcibly remove their liberty. I'll say it again. Equal force. If those who would steal liberty from us were coming at us with muskets, then muskets might be a suitable option. As it is, they are prepared to come at us with M16s and the power of the pen. It is amazing to me how to people like Mr Kaul, the rest of the Bill of Rights is about personal liberty, but when it comes to the 2A, it's all about a government controlled army. That's not what it says, and probably why he's so confused by it. If you understand the militia to be as George Mason said "I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." Or perhaps if James Madison is more your style: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country." So what is a "well regulated militia"? If you understand the saying within context, it would mean a well disciplined fighting force under the command of a leader. It says nothing about an army or national guard (not that I have anything against our armed services). But the simple fact is, if I get together with a few friends who are dedicated to protecting liberty, practice the use of my weapons, and have some semblance of group structure, we qualify as a well-regulated militia. It doesn't take bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy, just the people being willing to take up arms against oppressors in an organized fashion.

• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.

I've noticed, especially during this last election, that the Communist Party is alive and kicking in America. The NRA is not a terrorist organization. If they were advocating for violence against the public, I could see how that could be thought of as a terrorist organization. Now let's see... who do I know of that's advocating for the slaughter of civilians... hmm... oh yes, Mr. Kaul. In his call to forcibly remove legally held property from people and slaughter them if they don't comply. That sounds a little terroristic to me. And for the record, ownership (heck, even possession without owner present) of unregistered assault rifles IS a felony. Punishable by 10 years in federal prison and up to a $250,000 fine for an individual. Assault rifle being of course the technical term of a rifle capable of selective (fully automatic) fire. Perhaps Mr. Kaul should take some time to actually learn something about what he's so adamantly against before spouting off on his "diatribes".

• Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.
And if that didn’t work, I’d adopt radical measures. None of that is going to happen, of course. But I’ll bet gun sales will rise.

And again we come to the (suggested) murder of people who have committed the terrible crime of disagreeing with you. But you're right, Mr. Kaul. Gun sales will rise. They will rise because as I stated before, rational thinking people see the path you and those like you are on, and see a day coming when those guns may be the only thing left to save their lives. We live in a free state, Mr. Kaul. But it seems as though you would like it to be otherwise. Perhaps you should think about how much freedom of the press is available to those who do not live in a free state before you write articles like this advocating for its destruction.