Shhh...We Don't Dare Talk About Machine Guns Yet

BECK: We`ve already had that. We don`t put NASCARs onto highways and we don`t put machine guns into the hands of people, either.

HELMKE: That`s an interesting issue because there was a machine gun in effect ban that was passed by the federal government in 1934. What`s the NRA`s impression of that?

BECK: Chris, Chris.

HELMKE: How about the Brady Bill?

BECK: Chris, are you for fully automatic machine guns?

COX: We`ve never advocated fully automatic machine guns and Paul knows it.

There's a discussion going on over at Sebastian's about this, with a consensus being that we don't have the political juice to be talking machine gun legalization, so "the public rhetoric needs to be that we support the National Firearms Act."

I disagree. Strongly.

Yes, of course the observation that the NFA repeal argument is currently a political loser is obvious. But are we really saying that the only way we can address this is to endorse citizen disarmament with a back-door nod and wink that we'll get to it at some far off time in the future when we've won enough hearts and minds?

How about, if instead, we use this opportunity in front of a mass audience to educate?

So what could Chris Cox have said that would not have been an outright denial of our rights?

How about something along the lines of:

First, Glenn, Paul is wrong. For someone who's a national voice for changing gun laws, you'd think he'd at least know what the current law says.

The 1934 law didn't ban machine guns. The government was afraid it couldn't do that without running afoul of the Second Amendment, so instead they passed a $200 tax.

What that means is, right now, there are probably over a quarter million lawfully owned full auto capable firearms privately owned and enjoyed by our fellow Americans--our friends, neighbors and relatives. And they do this in a remarkably peaceful manner. This has been the case for the last 70-plus YEARS.

So if Paul-- who monitors the news and is quick to issue press releases every time there's a highly publicized criminal shooting-- is going to sit here and tell us these people are a danger, that we need to make their ownership of this property illegal and spend law enforcement resources rounding these firearms up, maybe he could tell us how often these gun owners have committed violent crimes with their firearms in the past seven decades--just so we can all see how big the problem really is.

Paul?

Or some such. We give up nothing and score a few points, plus leave our opponent with nothing substantive to offer for a reply.

I'd expect someone who makes a lucrative living arguing Second Amendment issues--one who employs a staff that includes professional wordsmiths--would be able to take this basic concept and run with it--as opposed to taking the basic concept of "shall not be infringed" and running away from it.

That is, assuming that's his belief. Me, I don't buy that this is some grand unspoken wink-wink-hush-and-we'll-get-to-it-later master strategy. I do Mr. Cox the honor of recognizing him as a policy articulator of the first order, and take him at his word.

Yeah, Well, Don't Let the Door Hit You in the...

You know, I'm really getting disgusted with the comments on this blog. I got my facts DIRECTLY from the Associated Press report Sunday morning. Obviously, as the day wore on, more details leaked out.

Why don't YOU do your research before attacking a writer----google the original AP report. Easy to attack---try writing something like this yourself.

Are the editors so desperate for a numbers count, on comments, that they'll print anything, however derogatory or derisive, that any neanderthal has to write????

You win, guys; you obviously don't want me to write anymore, so I won't; at least, not for this blog. You can have the political sphere to yourselves again!

Don't you dare criticize my work you...you cave men!

Another disarmament loon bristles at "Reasoned Discourse TM", so she has a public tantrum, takes her keyboard and goes home.

Good--I was hoping she'd shut the hell up and go take a Midol or something--she makes no sense, can't spell worth a damn, and that shrill, interminable nagging and whining was giving me a headache.

Still, "Only Ones" take note. Ultimately, the antis have you slated for disarmament, too--at least when you're off duty and/or haven't been assigned a sidearm for a specific deployment. For whom the bell tolls and all that...

[Via KABA Newslinks]

A Red's Two-fer

Bloomberg Thinks You're Sick:

Ryan Horsley encourages support for Adventure Outdoors.

The Enemy Within:

Ryan tells us about those in the "gun camp" more than willing to throw others under the bus if there's an advantage in it for them. Guest starring WarOnGuns' old pal, Judas.

Force

Blogonomicon has created a slide show.

UK's Times Online Inserts "Gun Control" into Wisconsin Shooting Story

The powerful American gun lobby, however, remains adamant that restrictions on what they claim as the constitutional right to possess firearms would only make killings more likely. Some argue that the Virginia Tech massacre would have been prevented if other students had been allowed to carry guns. They will also argue that little could have been done to stop a sheriff's deputy possessing a weapon.

But supporters of gun control cite the example of Britain, which has some of the tightest firearms laws in the world and where just 50 people were killed in 2005-06 as a result of gun crime. The latest figure in the US is for 2004, when 10,654 people were killed by gunfire.

Leave it to the UK's "authorized journalists" to insert this into the mix.

Not that ours are any better. Perceptive "gun bloggers" are noticing a peculiar trend: If it were a "civilian," the fact that an "assault rifle" was used would be a key component of the media hysterics. Many news outlets aren't even mentioning the weapon, or are simply saying "rifle".

The New York Times actually goes one better, identifying the weapon as "an automatic rifle." At this point, I'm not sure what the hell it was, but the glaring disparity in treatment certainly is...uh...interesting.

This Day in History: October 9

The 2nd New Jersey Regiment was raised, on October 9, 1775, at Trenton, New Jersey for service with the Continental Army under the command of Colonel William Maxwell. The regiment would see action at the Battle of Valcour Island, Battle of Brandywine, Battle of Germantown, Battle of Crooked Billet, Battle of Monmouth, Sullivan Expedition, Battle of Springfield and the Battle of Yorktown.