A defense attorney who wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment

Because(of course) we'll all be safer from crime. And, of course, we then won't have to worry about terrorists "quietly amassing handguns and assault rifles, and planning suicide shooting rampages in our malls". Because someone who's come into this country with the hope of committing mass murders would never dream of breaking gun laws. Would they?

I got this in a e-mail notice from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership(JPFO) which included this link to the article. You really, really need to read the whole thing. Here's a nice bit:
The idea of curtailing rights in the name of homeland security does not seem implausible given the current state of civil liberties in the United States. The war on terror has already taken an enormous toll on the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and thus far, very few Americans have objected. In light of this precedence, it seems reasonable that scaling back or even repealing the right to bear arms would be an easy task.

In fact, it will be a very difficult task. So far the civil liberties curtailment has affected generally disenfranchised groups such as immigrants, people of color and religious minorities. An assault on the Second Amendment will impact a much more powerful constituency.

So the various parts of the Patriot Act and other actions only affect 'generally disenfranchised groups', hmmm. Whatever was being smoked or snorted before this was written, must be good stuff.

Let's see, we're a 'powerful constituency' according to this jerk(which is good) which apparently doesn't contain any 'immigrants, people of color and religious minorities'(back to either what they were smoking or real bigotry or flat stupidity). And it's a terrible shame that civil liberties have been curtailed for those groups, but he thinks the 2nd Amendment being repealed 'for our own good'(of course) is a fine idea:
This is a shame. Instead of laying waste to the civil rights and civil liberties that are at the core of free society, and rather than squandering precious time and money on amending the U.S. Constitution for such things as “preserving marriage between a man and woman,” the nation ought to focus its attention on the havoc guns cause in society and debate the merits of gun ownership in this era of terrorism.

I admit to being rather fond of gun ownership at any time, especially in an 'era of terrorism': hard to shoot the tango who begins his action if you don't have a heater. 'Course, this guy would probably consider it to be a horrible thing for a bad guy to be shot, so he can kiss my ass on that, too.

So you've got two choices: the author is either so deluded he actually believes this crap, or he's just another nanny-state socialist who thinks this is a different hook to try to pull people in.

And I'll be Pelosi & Co. will just love them.