Anti-gun crowd uses incorrect news 
to push extreme gun-control agenda

To Continue Reading, Please Log In


Forgot your password?

7-day subscribers of The Daily Sentinel have unlimited access to all digital content with their log-in. Guests must register for limited access -- 12 articles a month.

Already a 7-day subscriber? Start here to activate your online access.
Don't have a username and password? Register now

COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Rick Wagner’s latest offering – “Anti-gun crowd uses incorrect news to push extreme gun-control agenda” – could just as easily have been titled “Wagner uses incomplete news to push extreme gun rights agenda”.

Reportedly, the Naval Yard shooter attempted to purchase (or at least test-fired) an AR-15 at the same gun shop where he purchased the shotgun actually used in the slaughter.

Also reportedly, Alexis was unable to purchase the AR-15 because a Virginia statute limits sales of assault weapons to in-state residents.  If true, then Virginia’s common sense law – a limited “assault weapons ban” – may have prevented even more carnage.

Moreover, if any “assault weapons ban” were unconstitutional – as extreme gun rights advocates insist – then Virginia’s law would also be unconstitutional under both the Second Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV, Section 2 (which prohibits a state’s denial of equal rights to U.S. citizens residing in another state).

Recalling that both Republicans and the NRA once supported the 1994 assault weapons ban (until such weapons became big money-makers for gun manufacturers and the NRA), the incident actually supports the proposition that a nationwide assault weapons ban – coupled with closing the “gun show loophole” and limiting magazine capacity—could indeed prevent mentally unstable purchasers from legally purchasing such weapons.

Likewise, while Kathleen Parker’s column – “Mental illness, not gun access, biggest problem in shooting sprees” – may be correct as to mass shootings, addressing that component is complicated by medical privacy laws.  Moreover, the element common to all incidents of gun violence is a gun – whether or not “mental illness” is also involved.

Wagner is correct in pointing to inadequate background checks as a contributing factor – which is the direct result of Republican-backed out-sourcing of traditional personnel security functions to private entities paid on completion rates rather than thoroughness.

Rick Wagner’s latest column was so right on the money that it spurred an early-bird “liberal” response from Bill Hugenberg. Let’s examine and deconstruct that response.
First, there is the manipulative marketing euphemism “assault weapon” used by Feinstein, Schumer et ilk. Anything used to assault someone, including a rock, a knife, or a big stick, is an “assault weapon”. The very same weapon fraudulently called “assault weapon” is a DEFENSE WEAPON when used for self-defense. So, get over that one, libs. What you should be saying is “an ugly black gun I neither understand nor like.” Actually, what the libs’ wannbe-clever language manipulation is trying to accomplish is the demonization and abolition of 100-year-old semi-automatic — (where one round is expended each time you depress the trigger) — technology without openly and honestly saying that is their purpose. What Feinstein et ilk don’t understand is that their polemic manipulations have the exactly opposite effect of their intended effect. They alienate rather than attract an audience to the point virtually all rational people simply tune that crap out. In fact, once a manipulator like Feinstein has been identified as such, most people can’t even hear what’s being said. They simply automatically dismiss the liar as BEING the lie.
As an enthusiastic supporter of the 2nd Amendment and the self-ownership it facilitates, I am OK with drawing a line between hand-held semi-automatic guns and, say, the Apache helecopters with their 70mm Hellfire missiles and 30mm chain guns available to the American police state’s militarized local police SWAT teams.
As for Republicans once supporting a ban in 1994, I suggest economic conditions and wannbe-clever social engineering have changed dramatically for the worse since then.
What control-freak gun banners never seem to talk about is the nuts and bolts of a corrupt political and monetary/tax structure which causes the social conditions that make people want to have guns for self defense and survival. “Gun control is about making it easier to take away the financial assets of us hard-working people.” ~ Catherine Austin Fitts (formerly a world class banking insider who now runs a financial advice website at solari.com). But there is not enough space to go into that here.
It suffices to say, it’s a lot easier for the Left (Hugenberg et ilk) to simply blame guns, skin color, or a lack of a big enough “welfare” check than it is to educate themselves and do the hard work of trying to fix a self-evidently corrupt and unsustainable political and economic “system”.
What Hugenberg et ilk are actually selling is not “reasonable” regulations against “assault weapons”. (Thankfully, the wannbe-clever marketing term “assault weapon” has become a non-starter.) No, what Hugenberg et ilk are actually marketing is a slippery slope against self-ownership. No informed rational mind should buy that.

So, predictably, John Wilkenson is at it again—spewing his usual vituperative nonsense as if it were rational thought.  “Let’s examine and deconstruct [his] response”.

First, the term “assault weapon” appears in quotes precisely because of the definitional difficulties encountered by lawmakers attempting to regulate them.

Second, because any firearm can be used in “self-defense”, Wilkenson fraudulently denies the distinction between traditional handguns, shotguns, and rifles, on the one hand, and the more recent class of weapons routinely characterized as “assault weapons”.

Third, Wilkenson is impliedly (and even more illogically) arguing that – had the authors of the Second Amendment known about or anticipated the proliferation and lethality of modern automatic weapons – they would have written it no differently.  Both the double-barreled shotgun and the multi-shot Derringer were invented late in the 19th Century – almost 100 years after the Bill of Rights was adopted.  The Gatling Gun was invented during the Civil War, and regulation of machine guns has long been constitutional.

Fourth, Wilkenson concedes the weakness of his argument by acknowledging that a legal line can be drawn between “assault weapons” and even more powerful weaponry.  By the same logic, that line can be drawn between “traditional” weapons used for hunting and/or self-defense and “assault weapons”, or between single-shot and multiple-shot firearms, or between manual and automatic weapons.  Because Wilkenson rightly admits that a line can be drawn without violating the Second Amendment, it becomes a political question – for legislatures and voters to decide – where that line should best be drawn. 

Fifth, as Wilkenson apparently concedes, the 1994 “assault weapons ban” was supported by both Republicans and the NRA, and its constitutionality was never in doubt.  Its failed extension in 2004 was supported by Republican President Bush.  What changed in 2004 was the NRA – not “social conditions”.  Since 2004, the NRA has engaged in a cynical marketing campaign on behalf of gun manufacturers to spur gun sales and membership by employing fact-free scare-tactics to convince gullible patsies that they need guns “for self-defense and survival”.  Wilkenson has obviously fallen for that false propaganda. 

Finally, Wilksenon relies on the familiar NRA canard that disparages those who call for “reasonable [and constitutional] regulation” of “assault weapons” as “actually marketing a slippery slope against self-ownership”.  “No informed rational mind should buy that”.

Rather, “informed rational minds” appreciate that—because there is a “slippery slope” inherent in any policy decision – it is the weakest form of fear-mongering argument and presumes the nonexistence of any intermediate decision points where the “slide” stops.



TOP JOBS
Search More Jobs





THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Sign in to your account
Information

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy