How often have you heard someone repeat an oft spoken line about the Second Amendment being about hunting or that no one needs to own a 30 round magazine? Worse yet, how often have you thought of a great response five minutes after the conversation ended? Due to the vast selection of stupid things gun grabbers say, it was necessary to split this column over two weeks. Learn them, love them, and repeat them. Here’s the first volley against the madness:
One does not need an assault rifle to hunt.
First, before crushing them with your brilliance and complete command of the Constitution, clarify the statement and ask them to define “assault rifle.” There is a 90% chance that they will not know what an “assault rifle” really is and you can explain to them the difference between select fire that includes full auto (which is an “assault rifle”) and a common semi-automatic lookalike that only fires one round per pull of the trigger. Machine guns have been highly regulated since 1934 and there has been next to zero crimes committed with true “assault rifles”.
Your comment assumes that the 2nd Amendment is solely about hunting and target shooting. Apparently you missed history class and have little if any understanding of our nation’s founding. The 2nd Amendment has everything to do with protecting the citizenry from a government interested in taking away freedoms of the governed through force. (That’s what prompted the Revolution, remember?) Our founders wanted an armed populace capable of defending themselves, their property, their families and their freedoms with the same firepower as carried by those that would take them away.
Recent statistics show that hammers, knives, and blunt objects killed more people than assault rifles but don’t let real facts get in the way of your ridiculous assumptions.
We need to keep “killing machines” off the streets.
First, your assumption is that the gun is somehow responsible for the crime. Are you trying to tell me that guns, regardless of the type, load themselves and create mayhem without a human component? If your assumption were true, then gun shows, gun ranges, gun stores, and gun museums, etc. would be some of the most dangerous places on earth, yet they are among the safest. How can you explain that if guns are the problem? If safety is your concern, why not start with automobiles or prescription drugs? They kill far more people every year than guns do.
Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country yet is number one in murders. It is statistically undeniable that the more you restrict gun ownership, the more the violent crime rate goes up. The idea that somehow by restricting any kind of firearm you will then be able to curtail criminal’s use of them in committing crimes is preposterous, completely illogical, and goes against all statistical data on the subject. (And, don’t repeat to me the trumped up and skewed “statistics” from the Brady Center)
The Founders had muskets when they wrote the 2nd Amendment, so it does not apply to modern guns.
Actually, they preferred rifles which were more accurate and technologically advanced than the smooth bore muskets used by the British, so your argument that they did not embrace technology is completely unsupported by historical fact. Furthermore, they did not have computers, the internet, radio, television, or microphones, but all are protected today by the First Amendment. Are you going to tell me that free speech only applies to actual speeches, not radio and television; or that freedom of the press only applies to actual printing presses and not ink jet printers or a web blog?
There is no practical use for 30 round magazines other than for killing larger numbers of people at the hands of crazed killers.
There is no use for a car that goes 200 MPH or a meal over 1,500 calories, but we allow them because of things called freedom and personal responsibility. Do you really want to live in a police state where the government controls every aspect of our lives?
Your assumption presumes that there is no practical use for a large capacity magazine yet our soldiers and police officers prefer them because they allow one to carry more ammunition while defending oneself. Why shouldn’t a free citizen living in a free society be allowed the same protections as those who would rule them by force otherwise? (See point number one)
Be on the lookout for next week’s column where we’ll smash the following assertions:
We need to close the “gun show loophole.”
Why would anyone need to buy thousands of rounds of ammunition?
All guns should be banned.
What good is the 2nd Amendment when our military has Predator drones and nuclear bombs?
And finally, I’ll share some other excellent one-liners just for fun. Stay tuned and keep your powder dry. The best is yet to come!