Gay Patriot Header Image

Cause and Effect, Continued

Posted by V the K at 4:24 pm - December 11, 2015.
Filed under: Gun Control

Once again, the more the Left Threatens to Ban Guns and infringe the Right of Self-Defense, the more opposition they stoke.

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.

Share

9 Comments

  1. You never know when you might have to put-down a rampaging T-Rex at close-range, or a Jihadi at 1000-yards.

    Achmed, just stand right here

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 11, 2015 @ 5:02 pm - December 11, 2015

  2. I’m assuming ‘Feralist’ is a typo but it’s one that actually works, especially in this context.

    Comment by Ignatius — December 11, 2015 @ 5:47 pm - December 11, 2015

  3. Perhaps we do need a Feralist Movement….back to the basics.

    That’s what “radical” originally meant in 18th-and-19th Century political thought.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 11, 2015 @ 6:06 pm - December 11, 2015

  4. “Feralist” was a deliberate typo.

    Comment by V the K — December 11, 2015 @ 9:44 pm - December 11, 2015

  5. Re: Poll: Given that 6% are in the ‘DK/NA’ column, the most that can be inferred is that there’s an even split. But it’s still a remarkable result.

    Re: CT Gov: My understanding is that neither of the terrorists was on a watch list. How, exactly, would denying those on the lists firearms have prevented the shooting? As with all things Progressive, it’s never about solving problems, it’s all about perpetuating a Narrative.

    Comment by Blair Ivey — December 12, 2015 @ 1:12 am - December 12, 2015

  6. Blair – it wouldn’t have, because ultimately there’s always the black market. But these idiots either don’t understand that or carefully pretend not to understand it. It all depends whether you believe this is towering incompetence at work or active malice. Somehow I think the former prospect is actually the more terrifying.

    Comment by perturbed — December 12, 2015 @ 10:32 am - December 12, 2015

  7. Usually it’s NOT about solving a problem, it’s about having a ‘solution’ to it.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 12, 2015 @ 11:17 am - December 12, 2015

  8. Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook were never on a terror watch list. And it’s unlikely that they could have been included on one, since Obama has, for all practical purposes, barred the FBI and DHS from spying on Muslims since 2011. So the Dhimmicrats’ proposal to prohibit gun sales to suspects on the list would not have prevented the San Bernardino massacre.

    Trump’s proposal would have.

    Comment by Tom — December 12, 2015 @ 2:24 pm - December 12, 2015

  9. #6: Given the actions (Matt 7:16) of the Left, I’m leaning toward the ‘active malice’ thesis.

    Comment by Blair Ivey — December 13, 2015 @ 5:57 am - December 13, 2015

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.