10 March 2021

A Counterpoint from Da to MB's Previous Counterpoint to the Original Point in re Gun Control

 Read the original Point; Counterpoint here. 

### 

The Piedmont Chronicles



I seem to not have expressed myself very well on this issue in my opening salvo because the response I got looks to me like an argument against something I wasn't arguing for. I said that my position is supported by a consensus of Americans, but that doesn't mean I'm right, does it? When John Lennon sings ”you may say I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one” I think, John, that is a logical fallacy. It in no way proves you're not a dreamer.


 I failed to say why I think my proposals are sound public policy. So let's have another shot at it. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

 I spoke out against assault rifles. This is not a second amendment issue. We have had an assault weapons ban that was upheld by the courts against constitutional challenge, I strongly support the second amendment and all the other ones except for that prohibition one which we wisely took back.

 I've been a gun owner most of my life. I grew up in the woods hunting and fishing. I've owned many baseball bats, various knives but no panty hose (but I do have some thigh-high fishnets of which I'm quite fond.) I've never been assaulted by any of those things, but I have been on two occasions by handguns.

 When our founders enacted the second amendment, it was nothing peculiarly American, As with most of our Bill of Rights, they were codifying existing British law, and when they invoked the right to bear arms the only firearms they knew at the time were muzzle loaded rifles and cannons. I don't know of anyone ever arguing-- though somebody probably has-- that the right to bear arms includes cannons. They could not have foreseen what the term “arms” would later encompass-- bazookas, grenades, anti-aircraft guns and nuclear weapons. No court or any rational American has ever maintained that those are included in our right to bear arms.

 What I'm getting at (or attempting to) is that assault rifles are weapons of mass destruction. They are weapons of war whose sole function is to kill as many humans as possible as quickly as possible.

 What I'm concerned about (along with the students at Parkland) is mass murder. Will an assault weapons ban stop psychotic mass murderers? Hell no. Will it save lives? Maybe. I hope so. Will the drug gangs and white “militias” sell their guns to the government en masse? No, but it should prevent them being carried into state capitol buildings.

 All of the mass murders since Columbine have been-- according to my often faulty recollection --executed by means of these WMDs. The two Columbine deviants used a shotgun and handguns. This occurred during the assault weapons ban. How many more children would have been slain had the young dumb asses been able to walk into a Walmart (I think you could do that then) and purchase WMDs? They surely would have. They killed twelve. They planted several homemade bombs that didn't go off.

 What I want to know is why my opponents on this issue support a right to own assault rifles. Particularly, why would you want to own these weapons?. Surely not for self-defense; that would be overkill.

 And by the way I do think pantyhose should be banned along with “skorts”. - Ellis Millsaps *Ed. note: look for a counterpoint from MB McCart soon.

2 comments:

  1. If you want to ban assault assault rifles...whatever that means, you may as well go for it and ban all semi automatic weapons. No matter how much scary black plastic you screw on it or scary names you give them, they are still semi automatic rifles. Its the same logic of those that claim our founders never envisioned the weapons of mass destruction we have now and only meant we were to have single shot muskets. If that's the case, then you should eschew the internet for quill and paper and post this drivel on the town square for public ridicule.

    ReplyDelete

We'd like to know your thoughts...