Anti Gun Journalist Writes Anti Gun Column, Gets Almost Everything Wrong and Makes Zero Sense
Guns Save Lives is not supported by ads and is ran as an independent project. If you support this project please consider supporting us on Patreon. Registration takes just a moment and even $1 is a massive help in continuing our work. Thank you so much.
Wow, so I just read the biggest piece of anti gun propoganda I have ever seen.
Normally I would just let stuff like this slide and laugh, but this guy is so wrong and so utterly ridiculous in his assertions that I feel the need to comment.
The column in question is written by Edgar Allen Beem at TheForcaster.net.
Beem is upset that an assault weapons ban probably won’t be voted on this year. He’s upset about a lot of things actually, most of which are utterly ridiculous.
Let’s take a few quotes from the column and break them down.
In reference to Senator Harry Reid not bringing the AWB up for a vote:
I wish he had brought the ban up for a vote, not because I think it would have passed, but just to tick off the National Rifle Association and its minions.
So you don’t actually want to reduce gun violence or have our tax payer paid legislators work efficiently in order to ruffle someone’s feathers who you don’t agree with? Classy.
I would still support a ban just to make the statement that two-thirds of Americans don’t own guns and are opposed to civilian ownership of military weapons. But if we have people on the U.S. Supreme Court who think that the Second Amendment protects our right to bear shoulder-fired rocket launchers, I guess we can’t expect political support for a ban on assault rifles.
Two thirds? Might want to check your facts. Military (full auto) weapons are already very highly regulated and very expensive. They are not legally owned by nearly all but the wealthiest gun owners. Rocket launchers are also already illegal and as much as I keep up with SCOTUS rulings, I don’t recall seeing an opinion supporting rocket launchers.
Just as nefarious politicos immediately find ways around any attempt to limit campaign contributions, wily arms merchants would surely change names and minutiae of design to thwart the intent of an assault weapons ban.
So you’d be upset if manufacturers complied with the new law. Got it.
…an assault weapons ban would essentially have to ban all semiautomatic rifles and pistols. Again, fine with me, but then I don’t want or need a semiautomatic weapon.
I don’t need a pink polo shirt like you’re wearing in your staff photo, but I wouldn’t ban them. What you want or need should not and does not dictate national policy.
A ban on assault weapons would have made a lot of us feel better even if it didn’t work, but the evil genie is already out of the bottle.
By all means, let’s pass legislation to make people feel better, strip people of fundamental rights and cost billions of dollars to enforce. Brilliant.
All of the above are typical arguments from anti gunners. Lots of emotion, lots of inaccurate “facts”, and a condescending tone to the opposing side of the debate. They wonder why we won’t sit down for a discussion? Go learn all of the facts, take emotion out of it and speak to us as equals and maybe we can have a discussion…but you still can’t have my AR15.