Endless Chatter

So there already was an assault weapons ban under Clinton? For 10 years? And it didn’t even work?

Then why, why are we talking about it so much?

P.S. I learned this on Tucker where a Democrat strategist is signing paeans to Walmart while Tucker says… everything the Left used to say about Walmart. We have somehow become the party of Walmart and Google, and that’s disturbing.

9 thoughts on “Endless Chatter”

  1. “Then why, why are we talking about it so much?”

    Because every time there’s a mass shooting, people start running around screaming that WE’VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING — ANYTHING, JUST THINK OF SOMETHING — ABOUT GUNS IMMEDIATELY!!!!

    And if you don’t agree, you’re a heartless, cowardly pawn of the NRA!

    You haven’t observed this phenomenon multiple times by now?

    Like

    1. Your side isn’t managing it well either. How come they don’t repeat that the ban has been tried and failed? I heard a million arguments about this but never this one.

      Like

  2. “How come they don’t repeat that the ban has been tried and failed?”

    They are repeating this. You heard it tonight on Tucker, and multiple politicians/governors said it over the weekend in interviews on the broadcast Sunday talk shows and on Fox News programs. The National Review website has also written about so-called “assault weapons.”

    Like

  3. As I remember, it was very limited & had various loopholes in it, and of course, if you already owned your Kalashnikov, you could keep it. It would have had to be a more serious ban and last longer, so these things went further out of circulation. And most gun violence is apparently not undertaken with assault weapons, and you can do quite a lot of damage with an automatic (or two). So …

    Like

  4. I’ve known this for a long time, which is why I don’t support an AWB. I only support gun control which is constitutional (AWB is) and effective (AWB is not.) Otherwise we’re just passing laws so we feel like we’re accomplishing something, rather than actually reducing gun violence. Improved background checks, 24 hour waiting periods for first time gun buyers, and various other measures would all be more effective than an AWB while at the same time infringing less on gun owners.

    Like

  5. This piece isn’t new, but it makes a lot of good points. https://www.businessinsider.com/why-are-americans-so-obsessed-with-guns-2012-12

    I’d add: it’s true that the 2d amendment is not about “personal protection” but about arming a militia (so that soldiers are co-citizens, not mercenaries, and less likely to turn on the population, and because the right to be such a soldier was considered part of citizenship rights). However, militias, and slave patrols, were about fighting the Native Americans and keeping the slaves down. We’d really have to stop romanticizing all of this if we wanted to get the trigger happy situation under control. AND would have to stand up to the industry — there’s a lot of money to be made selling arms, and we’re the biggest dealer in the world. AND we’ve got over 1 civilian gun per person in the US, far and away the most of anyone.

    I just looked up the 10 most violent-gun-death countries in the world and they are all in Central America and what I might call the greater Caribbean (if you include Brazil in that, which some people do). This, I’d hazard, may have to do with the histories of these places, the sugar, the triangular trade, etc., in which US is also a partner so perhaps there is something to this complex as well.

    But does anywhere else have anywhere near so many mass shootings by crazed people? These peoples’ ability to get these weapons is one factor, but what is this American craziness that has established the tradition of the mass shooting? Do we just have to periodically mow a crowd down, or what?

    Like

    1. “if we’d stop arms overproduction and unregulated export, we could help make safer the places we’re so mad at people for fleeing from.”

      Z’s current (31 Aug 19) article is essentially an argument that multiple EXISTING U.S. gun laws should be enforced, which would reduce the international gun trafficing substantially (Nothing will eliminate criminal activity completely.)

      The same argument is being made about ADEQUATE enforcement of EXISTING state and federal laws purely within the U.S. Tonight on CNN’s liberal Cuomo Prime Time show (hardly a bastion of conservative thought), confused progressive host Chris Cuomo kept insisting to guest Scott Walker that new laws were needed to keep the West Texas shooter from getting his firearm, while Walker insisted, correctly, that the shooter had broken the law by failing an earlier background check, and that prosecution of that crime ( failing the check) would have prevented his purchase of the involved weapon.

      In other words, it’s foolhardy to keep passing new gun-control laws that might work at the margins IF they’re ENFORCED, when we already have so many gun-control laws on the books that will ALREADY work, except for the fact that they AREN’T being followed!

      Bottom line: All this hysteria about DOING SOMETHING NOW!! should really be focused on DEMANDING that the current state and federal laws applicable to back-ground checks and gun sales be strictly enforced rather than routinely ignored.

      Like

      1. Universal background checks would be worthwhile and it occurs to me that requiring insurance (is insurance required now to have a gun?) as we do for cars might help — I’m sure the actuaries would be cautious

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.