Monday, January 28, 2013

An Uncomfortable Truth

One of the rhetorical devices that the anti-gun nuts will use is that if you support the full-auto weapons ban, you must necessarily support the "Assault Weapon Ban."  Now, that argument has at least two problems with it.

First there is the problem that the two types of weapon are functionally different.  A fully automatic weapon and an "Assault Weapon" (which is defined almost solely by cosmetic features) are two very different things.  Even a fully-automatic weapon (such as a machine gun) and true assault rifle (select fire weapon) are functionally very different.

Second is the idea that one supports the full-auto ban in the first place.  We'll come back to that later.

Leftists would have you believe that semi-automatic weapons are, by their definition, more deadly than weapons that require some sort of "action" to chamber the next round.  (That's what "bolt-action" or "lever-action" or "pump-action" mean- you have to physically manipulate the gun to get a bullet into position for firing).  So, by this logic, this is an ultra deadly weapon that no one should own:

A Highly Deadly Semi-Automatic Rifle. In .22LR

Where as this is a nice safe weapon, that doesn't fire at the rate of one pull = one bullet:

A Nice, Safe Howitzer requires reloading between shots.

Hmmm... maybe it's not the frequency of bullets being fired that makes a weapon dangerous, but the size of the round.

In that case this:

A .45 Revolver Fires a Big Bullet

is more dangerous than this:

NATO 5.56 is not much larger than .22 caliber.

Wait.  That can't be it...

No.  What they really want to ban are all weapons that scare them- and all weapons scare them.

Now, as to supporting the full-auto ban in the first place.  Some people do.  I don't.

The point that 2nd Amendment Advocates try to make is (primarily) this: responsible gun owners are responsible.  The weapon is not, itself, dangerous, and people who are going to be a danger will find a way to be a danger no matter what weapons are illegal.  I don't see how that fails to apply to a machine gun, a howitzer, or an M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank.  Certainly we should hold people accountable for their behavior- and mishandling a weapon (any weapon) in such a way that it injures or kills someone else should be (and is) a crime.  But if the point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the People from the depredations of a tyrannical government (it is), then there is no philosophical basis to prevent honest, responsible gun owners from purchasing and owning any weapon they desire.

1 comment:

  1. I will continue to say it even if nobody wants to hear it: living in upstate New York, I'd sooner give a kid a gun than my car keys. They treat the former as the deadly weapon it is, but since cars are not designed to kill they are often treated as toys.