Similarly, the editors of the Washington Post want to go farther than outlawing conversions from semi-automatic to automatic:
When House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was asked if the bill banning bump stocks might be a slippery slope toward other gun restrictions, she answered, “I certainly hope so.†To which we say, amen.
They also talk obliquely about banning “assault weapons”, presumably aware that there is no coherent definition of what constitutes an “assault weapon”. Show some spine and initiative. If there are specific weapons or characteristics of weapons they believe should be made illegal, spell them out. Delineate them. That would enable me to evaluate the prudence, effectiveness, and enforceability of the law so I could decide whether to agree with them or disagree.
In your last two posts you make a series of sensible points……if you start from the notion that sensible gun policy is the objective. However, nothing of the like is the case. A total ban is the real objective of the vast majority of anti-gun advocates. Period. Hence, after that it’s all irrelevant musing.
I’m not convinced that’s the objective. I think it’s more likely to be a combination of cri de coeur, virtue-signalling, and a gambit to paint their political opponents as dangerous extremists.
Laying out an actual program would vitiate the last objective.
If you go to YouTube you will learn how any semi-automatic rifle can be bump fired. It’s merely a matter of how the gun is held. What that means is that a total ban on semi-automatic rifles is the end point. I
They already spelled out assault weapons and even passed a law before, so not sure what you mean by spine and initiative. Are you suggesting that they have to publish the list every time they mention a ban? Whatever law would be written would likely be based on the older law, though I would think it would probably have some changes to account for new manufacturers and/or case law passed since then. Still, there is plenty of detail to work with.
Again, most people realize that elimination of guns is not practical. However, there are changes, widely supported even by gun owners, that might have some small effects. Those would not really be, IMHO, 2nd amendment violations. (All of the commonly accepted suggestions would still allow people to buy as many guns and as much ammunition as you want. Claiming that your 2nd amendment rights are violated when you have a hundred guns in the house and 500,000 rounds of ammunition just doesn’t hold much water.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Steve
They could at least refer to that list, steve.
The purpose of a newspaper is to inform.
You may be correct, Dave, or those may be additional or even alternative objectives. I won’t quibble. Either way, it makes the whole thing a bizarre exercise, and not aimed at good public policy or safety.
Its also the purpose of the newspaper to advocate/rabble rouse (pick one or both). Which is how I view the editorial with a side dish virtue signalling (ban assault weapons).
How lets see our ruling class and wanna bes translate public furor into law.
There’s a narrow line between advocating/rabble rousing and being the pom pom squad for the cognoscenti. I find both editorials veering into the latter territory.
According to Gallup, a majority of Americans believe we should have stricter laws on purchasing firearms. I tend to agree although I think that stronger enforcement of existing law would produce better results. But fewer than a quarter of Americans think there should be an outright ban of private possession of firearms. The tone of both editorials is one of “we all know what should be done and the only thing blocking it is the NRA” when the reality is that what’s blocking it is politicians’ desire to keep their jobs.
Don’t know if its desire to keep their jobs, believe its more inability do emulate Cato the Elder’s, “Carthago delenda est”. Something the marijuana and prohibition activists do and did remember.
Cognoscenti = Bluestockings
Boring lot.