There's certainly nothing there to get upset about. A more reasonable proposition is hard to imagine. Robert Farago didn't see it that way though. He suggested this may be the first of several incrementally severe statements. And, as a bottom line of sorts, Robert said, "The instant you accept the antis’ premise that “some people just shouldn’t have guns” you have lost."• First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.
• Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.
• Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it.
Speaking to the "you" plural of his readers, Robert Farago seems to be advising or preaching. The remark is a sort of rallying cry, meeting the president's extremely reasonable statement with extreme antagonism.
What's your opinion? Is President Obama just softening them up for the real plan? Or, is he issuing an honest statement which can be used in future policy making?
About Farago's extremism, do you think he really wants NO ONE prohibited from gun ownership? Could he really be that extreme?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.