The Assault Weapon Ban of 2019 looks an awful lot like the Assault Weapon Ban of 2018. It’s nice to see they removed embarrassing references to rocket launchers mounted to rifles and shotguns, but they couldn’t let go of grenade launchers mounted to rifles and shotguns. Yes, really. Look it up (links are provided below).
It’s 2019, the Common Sense Gun Control Advocate (Grabber) believes or pretends to believe that he holds the moral position on gun control. This can be shown to be false based on the current gun ban bill and two principles.
Principle 1) Good legislation is passed due to a demonstrated, compelling need, NOT an imaginary bogeyman.
Principle 2) Accurate numerical evidence helps demonstrates a compelling need, one’s “feelz” do NOT.
The Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 bans the following objects.
- The Barrett M107A1, the Barrett M82A1
- All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms
- Semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic shotguns with the capacity to accept a grenade launcher
I challenge any Grabber to answer the following questions, and provide links:
- In the U.S., over the last 50 years, what is the yearly average number of crimes committed using Barrett rifles?
- Does the number you provide demonstrate a compelling need to ban Barrett rifles?
- In the U.S., over the last 50 years, what is the yearly average number of crimes committed using belt-fed firearms?
- Does the number you provide demonstrate a compelling need to ban belt-fed semiautomatic firearms?
- In the U.S., over the last 50 years, what is the yearly average number of crimes committed using rifle- or shotgun-mounted grenade launchers?
- Does the number you provide demonstrate a compelling need to ban rifles that could accept a grenade launcher?
In the absence of numerical evidence, the Grabber may ask, “Why do you need a big, scary gun like that?” The Grabber uses this tactic because he cannot defend his own morally weak position. It is a deliberate attempt to put the burden of proof on the law-abiding citizen instead of the state; that is not how our country works.
Civil liberty is the natural and proper state of humanity. Civil liberty requires no justification. Civil liberty is not predicated on a need. Any law limiting civil liberty can be justified only by a demonstrated, compelling need. Anything else is immoral and unjust. If there is no demonstrated, compelling need, then it is not good legislation.
What do I know? I’m Justa Gaibroh.