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.
