By Michelle Zook / 21 December, 2012
Q: Shouldn’t we ban assault weapons?
A: All weapons are “assault” weapons and almost anything can be a weapon. By this statement, I take it that you’re in favor of banning high-heeled shoes, pillows, knives, guns, hockey sticks, baseball bats, coasters, automobiles, tools, furniture, some varieties of plants, laundry detergent, wasp spray, wine bottles, etc…
Q: Okay, well, why not just assault rifles?
A: There is no such thing as an assault rifle. Guns come in two varieties: automatic and semi-automatic. You can read here where Dana Loesch schools libs on the differences, and since most people here know guns, I won’t bore you with an extensive definition.
Q: But do you really need a high capacity magazine or a shotgun with a pistol grip?
A: I don’t know, do you really “need” a car? Do you really “need” a boat? Cars kill a lot more people than guns, and you have no Constitutional right to own a car.
Q: But how can you claim you have a Constitutional right to own a high capacity magazine?
A: How can you claim I don’t? The Second Amendment is very clear. It says, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” That means my right to keep and bear guns (and the munitions to employ said guns) shall not be infringed upon by the state. If I want a high capacity magazine (and the gun to go with it), then the state should not be able to prevent me from owning one.
Q: In the Founders’ time, they only had muskets. They couldn’t conceive of a time when people would want such things or surely they would have prohibited it, right?
A: They also couldn’t have conceived of a right to an abortion, taxpayer-funded healthcare or a welfare state, but I am assured that those things are covered by the Constitution. Shall we rethink our positions on those?
Q: But providing for the poor benefits the state. Guns don’t benefit the state, so how can we justify still maintaining them?
A: In the United States, we do not do things for the “benefit” of the state. If we did things for the benefit of the state, then we would have no First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, or Fifth Amendment — or any of the others, for that matter. In the Founders’ view, the state exists only to prevent injustice (see: Locke, John, and Bastiat, Frederic for further clarification).
Q: So you think everyone in the country should run around with guns?
A: Only if they’re comfortable carrying one (I don’t think it should be forced or coercive) and I would hope people would be responsible about it. While I don’t think I should have to get a license when it’s time for my little ones to start out with their .22s, I also think the idea of concealed carry classes is a good one, if only to explain the laws and ensure people are comfortable and responsible with firearms.
Q: What about teachers?
A: I think if teachers have concealed carry licenses and want to carry them, they should be free to carry them, with a stipulations that the principal is aware of it and that they are required to maintain the firearm on their person and not in a purse or a drawer accessible to students. Gun free zones haven’t worked out so well. Let’s even the playing field a little.
Q: What if there’s a crazy teacher?
A: If someone is too irresponsible to be trusted with the safety of students, they should not be teaching. Period.
Q: What if they go crazy while they’re teaching and they realize they have access to a weapon?
A: While we’re dealing with hypotheticals, perhaps you’ve never seen the damage a crazed teacher could do with a stapler, a pair of scissors, or even just a desk chair.
Q: But don’t you think criminals shouldn’t have access to guns?
A: Don’t you think they already do? Shouldn’t I be able to defend myself and my family from them?
Q: But if guns are accessible, then people can use them to murder others, right?
A: And if alcohol is accessible, then alcoholics can use it to get drunk and then they might murder someone with their car. If we restrict guns, then people (crazy people included) will resort to other ways of murdering. Cain certainly didn’t need a gun to murder Abel!
Q: Fair enough. But this still doesn’t explain why anyone would need a high capacity magazine or a pistol grip on a shotgun, so why can’t we ban those?
A: Why can’t we ban V-8 engines or luxury cars? Please explain to me why those are necessary. Furthermore, the Second Amendment is the ultimate protection against tyranny. What do you think the police or military would employ if they needed to subdue an area of the country?
Q: So you think people should own bazookas or (other military grade weapon)?
A: Why not? If they can afford it and possess the know-how to operate it, then who are you to prohibit them from having it? Personally, I would prefer a Tavor.
Get more Clash on ClashDaily.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.
Back To Top |