Some Simply Shouldn't have Guns

   "There are individuals out there viewing -- and that includes some of you media -- that want to blame the one thing that has no ability or capacity to commit the crime itself, and that's the gun," Marion (Florida) County Sheriff Billy Woods said today as some murder suspects were arrested. "These individuals committed the crime."

  Don't blame the gun, blame the person.

  But then, the sheriff undercut what he had just said. "These juveniles shouldn't even possess a handgun, but they did," he added.

  This is just the point: There are those who shouldn't have guns: those with mental illness, those who are making threats, those who are hostile towards their spouses  . . .

   And, yes, juveniles. If not all of them, a lot of them.

  Now, here's the argument gun advocates come up with at this point: The Constitution doesn't draw limits. It doesn't say some can have guns and others can't. If we take guns away from some, it's a slippery slope, and soon we'll be taking guns from everyone. 

 But, have you noticed how we have already taken guns away from one group -- felons? Hardly anyone is suggesting that is wrong. Isn't that a slippery slope, also?

 There are simply some people who shouldn't have guns. And, we can see that -- or should. Sheriff Woods is right, those juveniles should not have had guns.

 Next up, gun advocates might argue that if we make it illegal for violent spouses and mentally disturbed and wayward teenagers to get guns, that won't stop them. They'll get them anyway. The teens the sheriff was talking about stole the guns. 

  That doesn't mean you shouldn't make it illegal for them to have them, though. The first part of enforcing a law is having a law. You don't abdicate going after those who shouldn't have guns because you know you are going to fail. They need to be stopped and you at least try to stop them from having guns and from using them.