Let’s go back to this, because it continues.
Piers Morgan’s latest debate style consists of getting people to
a) say that they don’t disagree with the banning of automatic weapons so
b) since semi-automatic weapons shoot very fast, why do people not want to also ban semi-automatic weapons
(though in instance ‘b’, he makes certain he only talks about “assault” or “military” or “high powered” style weapons lest anyone worry about their handguns)
Newt does a pretty good job at leading the conversation to what Piers really wants which is to ban all weapons and that that’s what people are afraid of. Mission creep. BUT he and others would do a much better job if they would quit sticking up for the automatic weapons ban.
IF we have the right to carry, and the 2nd amendment is about not infringing on our rights and the reason to carry is so that we don’t end up living under tyranny, then yes, automatic weapons should also be fine to own. THEN I would suggest we can start leveling the background checks. [ht on both links: maggies farm]
(please remember I have very little knowledge of weaponry, just thinking out loud here)
simple 1 shot rifle, here you go
6 shot revolver, here you go
semi automatic with minimal 15 round magazine, let’s peek at your background, for violent felonies
automatic machine gun, let’s do the same kind of background check required of the secret service and add in some sort of training certification
But, none of this is about our safety, or our responsibilities. It’s about a powerful government working to de-arm it’s populace, like the rest of the first world. Like universal health care. If they can have it, why can’t we. They are soooo very sophisticated and we’re…cough, cough Americans. ick.
And hence the shouting, because we are, in fact, not talking about these measures in reality; we are on both sides really talking about the intended endgame of complete disarmament of the public.
If we were talking about achieving the goal of reducing the number of people killed by guns, why on earth would a gun-control advocate be extolling the shotgun as a more efficient and deadly person-killing weapon than an AR-15?
Suddenly the high lethality of the shotgun is a reason to endorse it and the relatively lesser lethality of the AR-15 is the reason to ban it?
Having bailed out major banks, the government can begin calling in favors. And it looks to be completely comfortable doing just that.
Click through. Jeff has the story and my rant is long enough.
But don’t worry – in the long run, since we’ll all be working for the government, making us “government officials”, we’ll be able to carry. riiiiiight.
UPDATE: I think Piers first mentioned the banning of automatics with the guns girls. [seriously Morgan? "gun girls"?] They did well, but again, they would do better if they would disagree with “a”.