The New York Times editorializes in favor of "sound gun-control laws." Which ones? "Reasonable gun-control laws," which can now be enacted following the "gun lobby"'s defeat in November. (No word on the success of the "gay lobby," "abortion lobby," "women's lobby," and so on.)
I'm all for sound and reasonable gun-control laws. Who wouldn't be? By definition, they are sound and reasonable, not the unsound and unreasonable kind that I oppose. (I should note that nearly everyone supports some gun control laws that they see as sound and reasonable, if only, say, bans on violent felons' possessing guns, or if you really insist on minimalism, bans on violent felons' possessing guns in prison.) Now if only the Times tells us exactly what those laws are -- all I see in the editorial is a quote from President-Elect Obama about "keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals," and nothing beyond that -- then we might have a conversation. I'd prefer a conversation on the substance, but even a conversation on the political question on which the Times is focusing would require some specifics. It's hard to gauge voters' likely reactions to proposals that aren't identified.
Oh, and here's the closing paragraph:
We hope the trend [of the NRA's supposed political failures] continues. To fight crime and keep Americans safe, this country needs sound gun-control laws. To pass those laws as president, Mr. Obama will need strong Congressional support.
Thanks very much for the enlightening observations!