Quote:
Originally Posted by molson
And if the assault weapon ban is as far as the gun control movement wants to go, than that should put a lot more scrutiny on what the ban itself actually accomplishes. (i.e, what types of firearms it doesn't include, cosmetic work-arounds, the status of previously purchased assault weapons.)
|
I think the straight facts are that for the most part hte gun control crowd, or rather the group of Americans now moved to speak out against guns, don't truly have some particular policy objective. One will come out and seems like it's already coming out, but it's a mistake to think that an "assault weapon ban" is what this is about. It's about people being scared and pissed off and fed up with gun violence. People tend to react by "doing something" and usually far too soon. But the problem is now people are arguing about an assault rifle ban, instead of the real deal. Which is that people are upset about gun violence, and other people are upset about gun control. Despite JimGA's claims, those aren't mutually exclusive. If everybody didn't jump to policy decisions within weeks of a disaster, we could be more productive. We don't need to jump out saying "No more assault rifles." We need to jump out saying, "What do we do about this?" And then listening to a lot of different answers, including those of the 2nd amendment crowd. But quick easy answers to argue about is what most people like to hold on to, because we're not taught to actually think about talk about things.