Federal Ban on Assault Weapons Expiring
In the week leading up to the too-long-in-coming Emmy coronation of The Sopranos, can I use a reference to the show in one of each day's headlines? Let's find out, shall we? Today's, of course, is from the song that plays over the opening credits.
It's appropriate because I could have gotten up this morning and purchased an AK-47. This scares me. I know that the assault weapons ban wasn't perfect, but isn't it better to have some gun control rather than none? One of the cops in the article linked above talks about how legitimate gun owners register their weapons. I'd like him to explain the "legitimate" reasons why one would own an AK-47 or want anyone else to have one, except perhaps the military. Are the deer arming themselves to fight back? Are pheasants and grouse organizing in the brush of the Dakotas and plotting to overwhelm anything that looks like camouflage this hunting season? Are you preparing for the violent overthrow of the government of Idaho?
The first two possibilities are insane, and the third is the sort of insane thing an assault weapons ban can help prevent. The fact that Tom Delay and Bill Frist thought that this very popular ban should be allowed to expire without a vote is a testament to their characters. The fact that no one but the media, and John Kerry, in a few speeches, really called them on it is a testament to the cowardice of politicians in the face of the NRA, and the need for a campaign to discredit that organization in the eyes of the public so its message is no longer effective. The evidence that we need gun control is on the evening news every night. It's a problem that urban folks understand, and it's one that suburban parents can understand in the wake of Columbine. And doesn't it make sense to try to keep the kinds of weapons off the street that would be most useful to potential terrorists? If the Democrats can't build a viable political coalition out of these parts, it's not hard to understand why some people think the party is inept.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
That's an interesting take. I'll say "almost respectable" is right, but you've got to remember that an AK-47 is a lot more lethal than most speech. And is it really as respectable to defend the right to own something whose purpose is killing as it is to defend the right to speak one's mind?
I think the deer here on campus could potentially fight back...if not the deer then the mountain lion that was in the apartment quad last week. ;)
As a gun owner, I agree that there is no need for me to have an AK-47, but I may have to go with Brian's reasoning that I guess there is some fear down the road my FOID card will be taken away.
And just to post as me, I apparently now have a blog...as if I need something else to occupy my time right now. *sigh*
Post a Comment