The conservative case for an assault weapons ban

The conservative case for an assault weapons ban –

A good read, one complaint about the reasoning…

I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefersFox NewstoMSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That’s why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state.

I even say it as someone whose feelings about the NRA mirror the left’s feelings about Planned Parenthood: It has a useful advocacy function in our deliberative democracy, and much of what it does should not be controversial at all.

Note: this was posted before the NRA’s latest episode of shooting themselves in the foot and then eating that foot.

My only issue with this article was this bit here.  PP mostly is a service organization, helping poor women (and not so poor women) gain some control over their health and reproductive lives.  The NRA is a different style of organization.  They aren’t providing services, they mostly tend to directly pressure politicians.  They are a lobbying organization and public advocacy group, not primarily a service organization as PP is (and my judgement here about the nature of said organizations is simply based on where their money is spent..that’s it…no feeling involved.)

So other than that quibble, it’s a good read.   As I’ve said before and will repeat, these types of “assault wepaons” are made for one primary purpose, to kill lots of people quickly.  There is no reason for a regular, lawful citizen to own one.

There are many, many other very valid reasons for owning a great many other types of firearms, but I’ve yet to find a good one for this class of weapon.  Much like weaponized germs, or radioactive explosives, regular folks just don’t need access to full and possible lethal arsenal of our species.  We’ve become, on some level, too dangerous for ourselves.

Please don’t focus on that last sentence (those who disagree) and instead try to come up with some reason regular people need weapons designed to kills lots of regular people quickly.  As said, and now repeated, I’ve yet to hear a good one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s