Assault Rifle Bill: Politicians “Slicking” Voters Yet Again

I didn’t want to take time away from my research but I criticized Rubio for election sleeze, so I must back him up when he is wrongly decried for standing up.

In the CNN Sunrise, FL, Town Hall broadcast (2017.02.21), two politicians, Sen. Bill Nelson and Congressman Ted Deutch (both Democrats) sleezed over questions so slickly no one realized they were being slicked.

Here’s what Nelson and Deutch did. When asked whether they would support banning assault-style weapons, BOTH said “Yes” clarifying that there was a list of 200 or so specific assault weapons they would support banning.

Sound good? If so, you’ve been slicked. They were deliberately misleading you! I can clarify by example, contrasting insurance policies “Named Perils” v “All Risk”. With an “All Risk” policy, if the insurance company hasn’t listed an event as an exception then you’re covered. If a sinkhole opens under your house and swallows up your house, and sinkholes aren’t listed on the policy as an exception then you ARE covered. On the other hand, you must be careful about “Named Peril.” If you buy a “Named Peril” policy and sinkholes aren’t one of the named perils, then, in the event above, you’re NOT covered!

This is what politicians have been doing with assault weapons. Ban a “named list”. Now, if I manufacture assault rifles and my ARX-47 is on the list, then all I need to do is drill a hole in the stock “to make it lighter”, or cut a groove in the stock “for a more comfortable grip”, or any of an infinite number of meaningless changes just to change the model to, say, ARY-47 — which I can now sell since it isn’t on the banned list.

This seems to be what Sen. Rubio was trying to explain and why he shouldn’t support this “slick the voters” bill that would fool and placate naive and gullible voters that they were, indeed, supporting a bill banning assault weapons — a “slick” bill that doesn’t at all ban assault weapons but fools voters.

Sen. Nelson began by chronicling his boyhood hunting and correctly concluded that assault weapons were for killing, not hunting, I agreed completely. I, too, grew up hunting and carried concealed most of my adult life here in Israel, as do many Israelis (and, as a result, despite media hype, we and our children are vastly safer here than you are there). But then Sen. Nelson “slicked” the audience by stipulating that he supported a “named model” bill, which does NOT ban assault weapons, only a few, of thousands (as Rubio tried to point out) models. So, most of you were slicked, yet again, by politicians.

I have two questions of my own:

1. Why did no one note that it was Obama and Dims who did nothing after those past massacres?
2. I’m an Independent who asks: Why does no one stand up and correct these same Dims who did nothing the last 8 years when they insist that today’s Congress — which THEY belligerently gridlock on every important bill INCLUDING this one — that this is a Republican-controlled Congress and Senate. Gridlick is NOT control! Obstruction — namely Dims — produce gridlock. Today’s Congress and Senate is NOT Republican CONTROLLED, it is Dim-gridlocked!!!

There’s still another “slick” going on by liberals: insinuating that arming teachers is some kind of requirement. No one of any stature has in the remotest way suggested that any teacher would be required to handle a weapon. If you’re a teacher who doesn’t want to then simply don’t. No one has even remotely suggested making you do so. But don’t impose your reticence on other teachers who may make their choice to qualify and license themselves to protect their students instead of deliberately choosing to avoid that responsibility and potential opportunity to save students’ lives.

So hat’s off in this instance to Sen. Rubio for being a stand-up guy trying to get the slick out of this bill. I hope he holds to that standard.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Assault Rifle Bill: Politicians “Slicking” Voters Yet Again

  1. I don’t see how they can ban any arms from anyone without an amendment redefining or voiding the Second Amendment. Of course the Murderer’s Roe faux court redefined murder and sanctioned pleasure without an amendment.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Before I made aliyah in ’85, for as long as I can remember, carrying concealed handguns in Florida was illegal. Other than security and law enforcement, I never saw anyone willing to strap a handgun on the outside of their suit or dress (which was legal). So “infringing” on the right to carry a weapon has been ensconced in American law since before I was born. The only question is “what kind of arms?” And that is a question voters must decide, perhaps even at the state and local levels.
      The US is facing a domestic arms race. A handgun or shotgun used to be enough. Then gangs began arming themselves with automatic weapons, armor-piercing ammo and body armor. So now, brainless “gun advocates” argue they must have assault rifles to defend their homes. Does that mean that when gangs get grenade launchers then home owners must arm themselves with RPGs? Nuclear tipped? Where does that arms race end?
      The reality is that, in most urban cases, because of the relative ranges of these weapons, the “defender” using an assault rifle is more likely to shoot the neighbor’s baby or an innocent mother or child walking down the street than any dangerous intruder.
      So, I’m a fierce defender of the right to bear arms and armed self defense. But I’m also a guy who owned guns and carried concealed (as did my wife as well) most of my life, and a fierce opponent of folks who hardly know which end of the gun to point away from themselves presuming to dictate either side of the gun issue. That’s tantamount to inmates running the asylum.
      Although I disagree with FL Dim. Sen. Bill Nelson’s views on parts of the gun issue, but his characterization of guns in the recent CNN “Town Hall” in FL dovetails with mine. To paraphrase, “Handguns (including semi-auto) are for protection and shotguns and bolt-action rifles are for huntin’. But auto and semi-auto rifles are for killin’!”
      The argument that semi-auto or auto (i.e. assault) rifles are essential for home defense is gun-ignorant and insane. Assault rifles are less effective in the interior confines of one’s home, especially in the dark, than the best weapon: a 12 gauge pump-action shotgun with 00 buckshot. So that argument doesn’t support assault rifles at all.
      There is NO sane reason for anyone, other than the military, law enforcement and security to have access to an assault rifle (and then, only when on duty).
      The argument that an NRA instructor in Texas who shot at, and chased off, a shooter with his assault rifle doesn’t hold water either. If he knows as much as he’s credited about weapons then even he will acknowledge that a bolt-action 30-06 (like I used to have in the states) would have been more accurate, perhaps enabling him to bring down that shooter instead of merely scaring him away for cops to have to chase him and maybe wind up in a shoot-out with others getting wounded and killed. The assault rifle was not the best choice in that situation either.
      The right of a CITIZEN to carry a concealed handgun(s), to possess a shotgun(s) for home security and to possess a single-shot (e.g., bolt-action) hunting rifle(s) should not be abridged. I support the 2nd Amendment more strongly than FL laws of the past (having prohibited concealed carry for all CITIZENS who qualify with proper background check, training and licensing).
      Ergo, my position remains that there is no place, outside of the military, law enforcement and security, for assault weapons. A limited-time buy-back program should be enacted during which any assault (only) weapon noticed (not searched for without a warrant) by law enforcement during their normal duties (i.e. gangs, criminals, domestic violence and the like) would be confiscated and melted down.
      After the limited-time buy-back period has expired, again with the exception of active-duty military, law enforcement and security, it should become illegal to own or possess (much less sell) any assault weapon, armor-piercing rounds or body armor. On the other side of the coin, CITIZENS’ (not illegals’) rights to concealed carry, shotguns and single-shot hunting rifles must be iron-clad protected. It takes both sides of this coin to work.
      Anyway, to me, that seems the only thing that can work.

      Addendum:
      Since we’ve been on the subject, I’ll add an addendum regarding some new “Gun Policy in America” research by the RAND Corporation announced on Shabat (https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-03/rc-tso022818.php).
      “There also is moderate evidence that stand-your-ground laws, which allow people to use guns to defend themselves without requiring that they first attempt to retreat, if possible, may increase state homicide rates. ” (ibid.)
      This essentially implies that right must flee from evil instead of standing up to it, else it “may increase homicide rates”. The flip side is that fleeing bullies with guns ensures rule by bullies with guns – and bullies with guns are irresponsible thugs who kill people, driving up homicide rates. Even if it would drive up homicide rates, good must stand against evil! Evil rules when good men do nothing.
      “Two groups with opposing views were identified among the experts. One group had views closely aligned with the National Rifle Association, and the other had views aligned with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.” (ibid.)
      “Despite sharp disagreements on their ratings of the overall merits of different gun laws, the two groups of experts were often not far apart in their estimates of the likely effects of laws.” (ibid.)
      I also agree with the following: “There was comparatively strong agreement between the groups of experts about the positive effects of expanded mental health-related prohibitions, the required reporting of lost or stolen firearms, media campaigns to prevent children from accessing guns, and the required surrender of firearms by those prohibited from possessing guns, such as people convicted of felonies.” (ibid.)
      I would go further, advocating a universal criminal data base; (imperative for both: background checks and coordinated law enforcement in fighting crime).
      Yet again in a democracy, radicalized poles gridlock moderates.

      Liked by 1 person

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