Once again, the more the Left Threatens to Ban Guns and infringe the Right of Self-Defense, the more opposition they stoke.
— Patrick J. Egan (@Patrick_J_Egan) December 11, 2015
This is an example of a Progressive Left initiative being blunted by strong and consistent messaging. The majority of the public knows that “assault weapon” is a misleading rhetorical term used to scare people with no logical basis, and that banning “assault weapons” would have only a negligible impact on the ability of criminals to get their hands on them.
Those who oppose Open Borders and Unrestrained Growth and Government could learn a lot from how the Pro-Second Amendment, Pro-Human Right of Self-Defense turned this around on the left.
On a related note, a Democrat Governor whose state finances are still a mess after massive tax increases is wagging the dog by proposing to deny his citizens Due Process and the Right of Self-Defense.
After Jump, Sean Davis at the Feralist eviscerates the NYTimes latest hysterical anti-gun hand-waving (Pay no attention to the President who’s losing the war to the Terrorist JV Team).
Those icky guns (the .50 caliber rifle the NYT was ranting about) aren’t just destructive, they’re super destructive. There’s just one teeny, tiny problem with that paragraph: bolt-action .50-caliber rifles were never covered by the federal assault weapons ban. There’s no possible way the expiration of the assault weapons ban could have led to the proliferation of a weapon that was never actually banned by the law, but editorial page editor Andy Rosenthal has never been one to let simple facts get in the way of an unhinged screed.
The 1994 assault weapons law banned semi-automatic rifles only if they had any two of the following five features: a collapsible stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher. I am unable to see how a collapsible stock or a pistol grip or a mere bayonet mount (not the bayonet itself) is capable of turning a regular weapon into a deadly assault weapon, but your mileage may vary. A bolt-action rifle, even a super destructive .50-caliber bolt-action rifle, that contained all of those features still would not have been covered by the 1994 ban. And to get a .50-caliber semi-automatic rifle around the 1994 restrictions, you would just need to pin the stock and switch out the pistol grip.
And then there’s the fact that a .50-caliber rifle has never been used in a mass shooting in the U.S. Never. That’s probably because those guns are hugely expensive (potentially costing $10,000 or more, not to mention the cost of ammunition) and difficult to lug around given their size and weight (the gun is nearly four feet long and weighs 24 pounds with a loaded magazine). But this is the gun-confiscating New York Times we’re talking about. Expecting its editorialists to understand the objects about which they are editorializing would be a bridge too far.
Readeth Thou The Thing In Its Entirety.