Limited Capacity Onslaught
BY Herschel Smith
11 years, 8 months ago
In his current constituent response about the gun-control discussion and legislative proposals, Sen. Angus King says he has serious reservations about limiting “assault weapons” as there is “too much emphasis on the cosmetic appearance of particular firearms rather than their actual functionality.”
A carefully presented NRA tutorial is being circulated among pro-gun control folks about the “assault weapon” misnomer. It’s real intent, though, is to say that if you can’t distinguish an “assault weapon” by definition, then your case for limiting anything is questionable.
The gun control effort is not about cosmetics nor technical definitions of weaponry and does not seek to obliterate anyone’s Second Amendment rights.
This so-called “assault” on gun owner’s rights is not a high-capacity, rapid-fire onslaught against all guns nor their owners. It is, however, a limited capacity onslaught where the outcome will be a lessening of deaths.
Limited capacity onslaught. It’s okay if only 15 or so people die. Exceeding that threshold crosses the line, however. It rankles the sensibilities of all good Americans. Just kill fewer people if you’re going to perpetrate such a heinous act. We won’t talk about what higher capacity could possibly do for the man who’s trying to stop the heinous act.
Limited capacity onslaught. There you have it. Schoolchild logic in today’s America.
On March 17, 2013 at 1:57 pm, jdkchem said:
With all things in a free society there is an obligation of the citizen to confront wrongs. The writer of the whine would prefer to pass that off on others so that he may be “free”.
On March 18, 2013 at 2:00 pm, Real Deal 36 said:
Good editorial! Pro Gun Control types are also OK with the high numbers of dead shooting victims, as long as the shooter had to reload every 10 shots.
On March 20, 2013 at 10:48 am, J.S.Bridges said:
“This so-called “assault” on gun owner’s rights is not a high-capacity, rapid-fire onslaught against all guns nor their owners.”
Your opinion – not clearly-demonstrated fact, though. In point of fact, just the opposite would appear to be true – especially when it comes to the “universal background checks” issue, for instance, which WOULD quite clearly directly or indirectly affect ALL guns AND ALL gun-owners; it would amount to de-facto nationwide registration of both.
“It’s just common sense: Less ammo power equals fewer deaths.”
Bu**sh** – this is the kind of false “common sense” argumentation that goes nowhere. It’s not only unprovable, it flies in the face of actual “common sense” – it’s simply an attempt at justification for yet another incremental exertion of control. It’s pointless noise, not argumentation.
“The gun control effort is not about cosmetics nor technical definitions of weaponry and does not seek to obliterate anyone’s Second Amendment rights.”
Really? Show us just how that works. When you try to define or re-define “assault weapons” (a clearly-identifiable category only in the minds of anti-gun people) apparently by the simple expedient of listing “guns that have stuff I/we don’t like or that scare me/us”, how is that NOT “about cosmetics…(or)…technical definitions”? And how does that NOT “seek to obliterate…Second Amendment rights”? Or are you unaware that the inherent right to self-defense embodied in and guaranteed by the Second Amendment is at least in part obviated – if not de-facto obliterated – by any sort of rules that would delimit the “arms” that can be kept and borne?
Even for an obvious anti-gunner, Mr. Brown’s ignorance on the subject of firearms and firearms rights is vast , and his disingenuity is laughable.
On March 20, 2013 at 11:05 am, Herschel Smith said:
Bridges,
This Jerry Miculek video is one of my favorite of all time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw
Assault revolver. Now. To get that good … that’s the challenge.