David Moore, commenting on this article:
http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/29/rand-paul-points-out-hyprocrisy-of-rich
…says:
“It would be valid if gun control advocates were arguing for a total ban, rather than just reasonable controls. I am not aware of any who argue for a total ban, mostly it seems to be about universal background checks these days. How do universal background checks (which those guarding the rich must certainly have passed) enforce a double-standard?”
Imagine that you had to undergo a background check to exercise any other right, such as say, the right to vote. While you could still technically exercise that right, it’d be a hassle, right?
Now imagine that you didn’t just have to undergo a background check, but you had to pay a hefty $500 “poll tax”, you were only allowed to vote at a polling booth far from your home, you had to bring two forms of ID, you’re forced to name who you voted for in a publicly accessible database, etc.
Perhaps no single regulation is unreasonable. But, at a certain point, you see how the thicket of “reasonable” regulations can become so dense that only the wealthy or powerful can exercise their voting rights?
Now imagine that politicians exempted themselves from all those “reasonable” voting regulations. Or used government funds to pay a flunky to get around them for them.
That’s the exact analogous situation in “may issue” cities like San Francisco and LA, where only the powerful and politically connected can get CCW permits (politicians, Sean Penn, Jerry Brown’s bodyguard).
God help you if you’re a poor, black woman who wants to legally carry a gun in one of those cities.
You see the hypocrisy now? You see why self-defense advocates resist the accumulation of so-called “reasonable” regulations?