This is a great article in the Captain's Journal blog on "assault weapons." Read it all and give it some thought...
Arguing that their bans don’t adequately distinguish between weapons leads them to refine their ban. Arguing that there is equivalent lethality between weapons denies aspects of utility and design, and only causes them to ban weapons that have specific utility for home and self defense. And arguing that their regulations were ineffective only embarrasses them to pass even more onerous ones.
The correct way to argue against Feinstein’s proposed assault weapons ban is to argue that there is no constitutional basis for such a ban, and any new assault weapons ban would be at least as immoral and obscene as the last one was.
6 comments:
A flawless irrefutable argument. But remember who we debate. Their argument has always been, to think if he had a thirty round magazine, look how much damage would have been done. Ours is logical, but there was no thirty round mag so what's your point. But if there was. But there wasn't! And on and on. It's much like pissing on a third rail. They do not live in a logical world. They live in what if-ville. Sort of like Who-ville don't ya think?
Frankly the last ban got through because the manufacturers tacitly approved of the ban, giving legislators the green light to go forward. That same scenario is taking shape now. There has not been a peep out of any manufacturer opposing the proposed legislation. Remember $100 magazines? That’s just the entry price point now for “pre-ban” magazines.
Manufacturers, distributors & dealers need to take a strong public stand of “No Law Enforcement sales of restricted items” - in other words if you ban them, you don’t get them either. We also need to make it clear to the businesses that we will continue to buy from supporters, but collaborators will be shunned until they are out of the business.
Very, very well said! This is the only way to debate with any gun-banner.
Life Member
The constitutionality argument is a succinct point but I fear it is not enough. The counter argument is always "we support the second amendment, we just want to ban _these_ guns. They're just too dangerous."
We have to go on the offensive (metaphorically speaking). Rather than wait for the next round of gun grabbing, start lobbying for pro gun changes (national reciprocity springs to mind, but nfa reforms would work, too.).
Put the other team on the back foot defending their agenda while we promote ours. We know these things in our bones - W have to defend them as vigorously as we defend speech or religion.
Long row to hoe given the current climate, but it's not about gaining ground, it's about preserving the ground we're on.
Great article, but... Truly we must leave no stone unturned in our defense of our God given right to self defense. We must argue rationally that there is no difference between a
Remington Woodsmaster, an AR15 Bushmaster or a M1 Garand in the hands of a law abiding citizen defending his life and his liberty. The Second Amendment is clear as a bell until we let a a lawyer or judge like John Roberts interpret it.
P.S. What are the manufacturers of the best selling rifle of all time doing?
Feinstein already believes that the Constitution is hers to twist or ignore, so constitutional arguments will not work on her either.
Post a Comment