The Flaw in Liberal Gun Control Logic – Part 2; Democrats across the country are accusing republicans of opposing gun control laws because they love their guns more than they love their fellow citizens. This is, of course, false. Conservatives oppose proposed gun control laws for two simple reasons – 1) the proposed laws won’t lead to a reduction in gun violence; and 2) they violate the Constitution.
Every time there is a mass shooting we hear the same cry from the left, “we must do SOMETHING about gun violence”. And on this, republicans could not agree more. Republicans’ families are affected by gun violence just as much as liberals’ families. Our differences boil down to the question of what that SOMETHING is. The first sanity check when any gun control measure is proposed is to ask ourselves, “if this law had been in place prior to the last mass murder, would it have prevented the attack.” And so far, the answer is a resounding “no” for every gun control law proposed by liberals. Let’s look at the assault weapons ban proposal.
The first reality that liberals won’t face is that mass murderers choose handguns over rifles almost 3 to 1. So why do liberals focus on banning assault style rifles rather than handguns? The answer is cosmetics. To a liberal, a gun’s look matters more than its lethality. They ignore the fact that it is harder to hide a rifle en route to a crime, than it is to hide a handgun. So, if anything, a rifle makes a potential killer much more likely to be caught before they can begin their killing spree. Given the choice, a rational person would rather a potential killer choose a rifle over a handgun. But the left focuses on the weapon that looks mean.
Even if rifles were the gun of choice for most murderers, banning “assault style” weapons has no effect on a potential killers ability to carry out a mass murder. Below we see two weapons. The weapon on the left is an “assault style” rifle. The one on the right is not. Both can be assembled using the AR-15 receiver. For those who are not in the know, the “AR” in AR-15 does not stand for Assault Rifle, but rather Armalite Rifle, for the company that developed it.
Liberals want to ban the one on the left. But they are OK with the one on the right. So, what is the difference between the two? The answer is cosmetics, not lethality. The one on the left looks scary. But in fact, it is no more lethal than the one on the right. The receivers of both weapons can shoot the same caliber bullet at the same rate of fire and can accommodate magazines with any number of rounds. The fact is that if we limited a potential killer’s choice to the one on the right, as does California, we would not reduce that killer’s lethality one bit.
It’s true that many of the killers who do choose a rifle over a handgun favor the rifle on the left. But that is simply a preference for style, not capability. If the rifle on the left is banned, the rifle on the right will become their new favorite. Liberals want us to believe that if a killer cannot get his or her hands on the scary rifle, they will somehow lose their desire to kill. The reality is that once a person has chosen to kill, they will pick the weapon that they can get their hands on, be it a non-assault rifle or handgun.
The other major difference in the views of liberals and conservatives is on the Constitutionality of anti-gun laws. Rather than amending the Constitution to provide for gun restrictions, liberals simply want to re-interpret the meaning of the second amendment. They rationalize this by saying that the lethality of guns has increased and that surely the founding fathers did not mean to allow citizens to carry such lethal weapons as we have today. That logic has two flaws. First, the founding fathers did understand that times would change.
That is precisely why they included a method to amend the Constitution as citizens might deem necessary. We have followed that process to correct several major changes in society, such as abolishing slavery and giving women the right to vote. Why should gun control not use the same process? More importantly, if we now decide that we should re-interpret what the second amendment means, why not apply that same logic to all the other amendments? Or even to the Constitution as a whole? Shall we reinterpret the entire document based on “today’s thought”. It is mind boggling how a liberal can infer all kinds of rights that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution, yet can dismiss a right that is explicitly stated.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
Parler: https://parler.com/AFNNUSA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
The two important points herein are emotion and logic.
The lower echelons of the left are ruled by the former, in that they believe “scary” rifles are the problem and eliminating them is the solution. Logic does not enter the equation, only the emotions of the moment, hence the irrational replies to anyone making a logical assessment of the situation.
Logic guides the upper echelons of the left as they manipulate emotions to create hysteria over “scary” rifles. They know these are the types of rifles that, in private hands and in sufficient numbers, limit their freedom to rule over the rest of us as they see fit. If they succeed in banning whole classes of firearms, they can extend these bans to include the next class of “scary” firearms (recent events in Canada provide an apt demonstration of this process).
Never forget the ultimate aim of gun control is for government to control the guns.