“Assault Weapons”

The wrong way to argue against bans against them:

Gun control at its root has always been about gun control. Feinstein is a statist, and her laws and regulations will always and forever increase the power of the state. Feinstein sees through McArdle’s argument on cosmetics, which is why her proposed ban includes semi-automatic weapons. There isn’t anything cosmetic about the aims of the gun control advocates.

Arguing that their bans don’t adequately distinguish between weapons leads them to refine their ban. Arguing that there is equivalent lethality between weapons denies aspects of utility and design, and only causes them to ban weapons that have specific utility for home and self defense. And arguing that their regulations were ineffective only embarrasses them to pass even more onerous ones.

The correct way to argue against Feinstein’s proposed assault weapons ban is to argue that there is no constitutional basis for such a ban, and any new assault weapons ban would be at least as immoral and obscene as the last one was.


[Update a couple minutes later]

Related: Go have a Tea Party by seeing Red Dawn.

6 thoughts on ““Assault Weapons””

  1. Go have a Tea Party by seeing Red Dawn

    Or by playing Modern Warfare 2. Even if they both stretch belief somewhat. It’s inconceivable to invade the US using Russian or Chinese paratroopers. Besides the airplanes being visible a continent away neither country has enough airlift capacity not to mention that the history of successful paratrooper invasions is somewhat limited. There is the Nazi invasion of Crete and then nothing. Well the US isn’t Crete. The US National Guard alone would be enough to stop an invasion let alone with the rest of the armed forces being available on top of that.
    No, the most likely scenario I have heard for an US invasion is something similar to the history of Fallout. They should make a movie of Operation: Ancorage from Fallout 3. It would be a lot more interesting than Red Dawn.

  2. No, Rand, Feinstein is not a control freak. She sees a problem (gun violence) and because she doesn’t know anything about guns, she figures (not without logic) that if guns were banned there would be no gun violence.

    This is exactly the problem with demonizing your opponents. By saying stuff like this, everybody writes you off as a crank. Even people like me who agree with you on the issue of gun control have to spend time disassociating ourselves from you.

    1. Control freaks are never that in their own minds. They construct rationalizatons to justify their actions to themselves. Feinstein couldn’t even see the hippocracy of her own position on guns “…If I thought we could we would have banned all guns”. Yet at the same time have a concealed carry permit for herself because she was threatened or whatever. In her eyes we are the rabble, but she sees herself as more “responsible” elite, as if her life is more important than ours.

    2. Ignorance is a natural state. There’s no shame in admitting ignorance on a subject. Fortunately, her ignorance can be cured if she’s willing. Since she’s ignorant about guns, she should spend a few hours with a qualified instructor and learn a great deal. Instead, she continues to be willfully ignorant. That’s a dangerous state for someone trying to write legislation.

  3. Feinstein is not a control freak.

    Oh, please.

    Next you’re going to be telling me that Mike Bloomberg isn’t, either.

    By saying stuff like this, everybody writes you off as a crank.

    “Everybody”? Really?

    Hilarious concern trolling.

Comments are closed.