Well, when I see a spade I call it a spade. When I see a a spade, I don’t call it a rake. But how telling is it that the Dems think the term “gun control” is so toxic that it is to be banished from the vocabulary? It’s also not like they haven’t tried this charade before. It went from gun control, to gun safety, and then to gun violence prevention. This is not news to anyone who’s followed this issue. I don’t care what they call it. We will defend the Second Amendment at the end of the day.
14 thoughts on “Dem Anti-Gunners: “Don’t Call it Gun Control””
We can play the same game. When they offer euphemisms for gun control, we can use the even more toxic term “gun confiscation,” as what is being proposed. They will of course deny it, but it is usually easy to turn around other things they’ve said, to prove that nothing short of total confiscation would accomplish what they are seeking at this point; so if they want “A” they must logically be seeking “B.”
Right, because what they are proposing is not â€œcontrolâ€- it is prohibition. They can use the word â€œcontrolâ€ when their stated goal is to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands, but when they say everyoneâ€™s hands are the wrong hands it is no longer â€œgun controlâ€. The funny thing is anytime they propose outright bans on something it is an admission that silly control schemes donâ€™t work.
Errr, no, only a few like the Illinois anti-gun legislators or DiFi in an unguarded moment (we do know her true preference) and Cuomo are talking prohibition AKA confiscation (at least I take it that’s what you’re saying from the rest of your comment).
In terms of serious, has a chance to pass national legislation, they’re as far as I know talking severe restrictions and red tape (e.g. NFAing AWs), and no transfers, which is not quite in the spirit of what you’re saying, and which as you point out “is an admission that silly control schemes donâ€™t work,” since they’re by political necessity willing to leave them in our unworthy hands.
That even a California Democrat (albeit one from north of the worst fever swamps) would realize “gun control”, exactly what they’re proposing, are toxic words of art, is telling. Given that at least in that short blurb he didn’t suggest a different way to frame it except “ASSAULT WEAPONS!!!” … is telling, and a cause for guarded optimism.
Harold, let me explain what I mean by â€œcontrolâ€ vs. â€œprohibitionâ€. Things that fall under â€œcontrolâ€ are background checks, procedures, red tape, paperwork, training mandates, licensing, registration, safe storage, added expenses, etc. They say you can have *it* so long as you do x,y,z (whatever â€œitâ€ maybe). I have no doubt that a major motivation of these proposals is to reduce overall gun ownership through cost and burden. Then there are proposals that are not at all about â€œcontrolâ€- but are about â€œnoâ€. They are bans for the general public. If we are prohibited from buying new guns with certain features then that is a level of prohibition, even if we get to keep what we currently have. So no, I donâ€™t consider the word â€œprohibitionâ€ to be synonymous with â€œconfiscationâ€. Bans can have multiple levels of severity: ban on sale, ban on sale and transfer, ban on possession (with grandfather), ban with confiscation- but they are all aimed at prohibiting everyone from something (with the usual exemptions of course).
Thanks, I was afraid I was putting words, or at least concepts, into your mouth.
As for the former, the Instapundit wearing his law professor and libertarian hats has written a law review piece which you can get on SSRN on how the former can be unConstitutional if taken too far (imagine similar restrictions on 1st Amendment rights); I think it’s this one (but you can do worse than read anything by him :-). Let’s hope the Heller majority outlives Obama’s 2nd term….
Fox News just gave a heads up that at the top of the hour (2 pm EST) today, they will reveal Joe Biden’s plans for much farther reaching gun control legislation than anyone suspects. I’ll try to be watching!
Update: not much new revealed except that a North Dakota Demicratic pro-gun Senator thinks it’s too harsh.
But they then reported about how a Georguacwomsn just this morning defended her home and children from a lethal intruder. She needed to empty her revolver to drive him off! Fox beautifully explained how this proves a magazine restriction law could have cost this family their lives had their been a second intruder! BRAVO!
*Georgia woman*. Sorry!
Wow, that’s the most impressive typo I’ve seen a long time, not counting what I too often type but manage to catch before committing it ^_^.
Here’s the story about how one of them tried to jack the Wikipedia entry on ‘gun safety’.
Errr, I think you may have linked to the wrong article, that doesn’t seem to relate to Wikipedia.
And the guy who tried to jack the Wikipedia entry got slapped down. It’s amazing, but the quality of Wikipedia gun articles far exceeds what I’d otherwise expect from it. Of course, that’s because a lot of us are very dedicated to defending the relevant pages.
Sounds like a perfect opportunity to take control of the dialog and call it really is, victim disarmament.
Use their antipathy towards armed guards at schools, and, yeah, just maybe….
Comments are closed.