"...the public health community can go pound sand."

The title of this post was Robb Allen's response to this claptrap, which he characterized as "almost too much to fisk." But me, I love a good fisking, so line 'em up and buckle up, boys and girls, here we go...

For the public health community, the question isn’t what the framers intended, but what works.

And of course we all know that "what works" for most public health professionals seems to be ever more restrictions up to and probably including more or less a total ban on firearms probably much like the one D.C. now has in place. You know, for teh childrenses. But I would bet that "what works" in the opinions of public health professionals is probably just as much a function of their political beliefs as it is what they were taught in their formative years, and this seems to be backed up by the author's later bitching about teh eeeevil "gun lobby." Beyond all this, though, why does "what works" and "what the framers intended" have to be mutually exclusive? And if you don't think that's what the author is implying, check out this nugget:

...blaming individual users is counterproductive

Contrast this with what John Adams said in the early days of the Republic:

Our Constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

I think it's safe to say that part of that morality -- arguably one of the things at the core of that morality -- is being accountable for your own actions and holding others accountable for theirs. And this, of course, runs directly counter to what the author of the linked piece is saying. She's basically saying that it's "counterproductive" to "blame" the criminals and, presumably, to lock them up and throw away the key or put them down like the rabid animals many of them are. (and now that I think about it, that's actually an insult to the animal, because the animal didn't have a choice in getting to that rabid state -- the criminal does have a choice.) She might call it blaming them, but as one who cherishes liberty and individual freedom, I'd like to call it holding them accountable.

No matter what kind of gun laws are eventually allowed, DC needs to do something about gun violence.

Ah, yes, the eternal cry of the anti-liberty nanny-stater: "Somebody needs to DO something!" They did do something, 31 years ago, and it didn't work. You think it might be time to, y'know, try something else?

And, of course, a final insult in the comments, where the author's beliefs are put out there in all their resplendent glory:

There’s no way for us to have a functioning society if we insist on absolute liberty to do anything we please. I’m glad that there are restrictions on driving drunk, driving at excessive speeds, and shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. Maybe some of us will just fundamentally disagree about this, though.

I was unaware that any of us were insisting on the liberty to drive drunk or at 90mph through a school zone. It seems as if that's all these people have is insults and faulty arguments. Who in the bloody fuck does this, this person *spit* think she is, comparing me and those like me to drunk and reckless drivers? DAMN these people. All I can say is, what about the tens of millions of gun owners who didn't kill anyone yesterday? What about their rights? Yes. Liberty is inherently dangerous. It appears they don't like that and don't care about those of us who are willing to deal with it. And once again, I am reminded of the classic exchange:

"Why don't all of you gun-nuts go off and start your own country?"
"We did. Who let you in?"

Who let them in, indeed...and can we throw them the fuck out?