One increasingly popular avenue of attack on the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms involves supposed “gun owners” who nevertheless share in the frenzied enthusiasm for banning so-called “assault weapons,” 11-round and larger magazines, etc. The thinking, apparently, is that if even gun owners approve of these new infringements on that which shall not be infringed, and only we “extremists” are opposed, there is no excuse not to go full throttle for every ban and restriction offered up.
In that spirit, Charles R. Eisendrath wrote an article for the Atlantic last week, in which he claimed to be a “gun guy” who is also in favor of banning so-called “assault weapons.” He wastes little time in getting to his point, starting right with the title: “Guns for Hunting People Are Different: Legislation Should Reflect That.” After calling himself a “gun guy” in the first sentence, he quickly expresses his dislike of seven-round and larger detachable magazines:
If you’ve got ten or even 30-shot replaceable clips, then you’re holding arms for hunting humans–equipment that brings the Second Amendment face to face with the Sixth Commandment.
And so-called “assault weapons” come next:
Assault rifles are rifles of mass destruction. We shouldn’t be trying to make it safe to have them on the street. It’s too late for that. We need to restrict homicide weapons to those licensed to hunt humans, in law enforcement and the military.
Hmm . . . “licensed to hunt humans”–is that how we are to think of police and the military, and their “homicide weapons”?
One thing he does get right is that banning magazines of whatever capacity is to be considered “excessive” will never “work.” A magazines is, after all, a box with a spring inside–not exactly a Manhattan Project-level endeavor–even without 3-D printers (not to mention the tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, already in circulation). So, no–banning the magazines won’t accomplish what he wants. The guns themselves, that accommodate those magazines, have to go, too:
No amount of legislative fiddling will prevent Rambo-styles clips from replacing small ones if the structure of the gun isn’t changed. The answer is to return long guns to traditional magazines internal to the weapons, themselves, limited to hunting restrictions.
And he’s still not done:
But even that won’t address the most immediate issue of what to do with the estimated three million assault rifles out there.
And he goes on to explore the cost of “assault weapons,” and how money for “buy backs” might be raised. He doesn’t come out and say that it would be a mandatory “buy back,” but that’s the inescapable implication, as evidenced by his saying that the money raised would amount to “something like fair-market value” for all the privately owned “assault weapons” in the U.S. That’s a mighty dubious claim all by itself, but the bigger point is that people aren’t going to voluntarily give up something for merely “something like fair-market value.”
A National Institute of Justice study has concluded that banning “assault weapons” would do nothing if those already in private hands were allowed to stay there. My response: “If the Obama regime wants to “buy” our guns, it had better be prepared to pay in blood.” And more of it than they can afford.
But is Eisendrath even a gun owner, as claimed in the first place? There’s some reason to doubt. If so, he’s a rather confused one:
For example, a .12 gauge semi-automatic is my sentimental first duck gun that I stopped using after falling in love with elegant side-by-side (two-shot) shotguns.
Hmm . . . “a .12 gauge semi-automatic.” That would have a bore of about 3.387 inches, around 86 mm. That’s about the size of the most powerful WWII tank cannons. Either he’s not the ethical “sportsman” he claims to be, or those are some mighty big ducks. And if the “.12 gauge” was a typo, it was one that he repeated:
For reasons I don’t remember, I still have a beat-up .20 gauge single-shot that I gave to one of my sons.
Not quite as big as a “.12 gauge”–about 2.857 inches, or 72.6 mm. More of a mid-range WWII tank cannon–still one hell of a lot of ordnance to be dragging through the wilderness on one’s hunts.
Whether or not Eisendrath is really a gun owner (a rather confused gun owner, evidently) is hardly relevant–he’s a domestic enemy either way. Then again, if he is not, that says something about his integrity, and that of the “gun control” movement.
- Arizona gun dealer tells Obama voters, ‘Turn around and leave!’
- NIJ memo shows new gun laws can only ‘work’ with registration, confiscation
- The Heartbreak of TFS
- Mark Kelly’s story on AR-15 purchase prompts skeptical open letter
- Key question overlooked in debate over Bloomberg ‘Average Joe gun owner’ ad
- Fudd’s Little Acres
- Gun Owner Butt is Ignorant and a Liar
- How is MoveOn.org gun owner ‘a proud defender of the Second Amendment’?
- “Gun Owners” for “Gun Control”