The New York Daily News has become the go-to place for all things stupid in relation firearms. Yesterday, one of their reporters, and apparently a member of MENSA, made an utter ass of himself by his fanciful and totally bogus description of firing an AR-15. Today Massachusetts Congressman Seth Moulton joins the fray with an equally disjointed and juvenile argument that isn’t even based in fact. It is based in his feelings.
I trained for years in order to use my weapon properly. And long before I ever aimed it at an individual, I had to look at pictures of dead and mangled bodies in order to understand the magnitude of what it meant to pull that trigger.
So believe me when I tell you: There’s simply no reason for a civilian to own a military-style assault weapon. It’s no different than why we outlaw civilian ownership of rockets and landmines.
That’s it. That is the sum total of the reason. Moulton decides you shouldn’t be allowed to own a particular type of weapon because it was used in an attack by an enemy our government can’t bring itself to name. Oh, yeah. Marines. Iraq. As Frederick the Great is claimed to have said, “I had an ass that followed me on a dozen campaigns, at the end it was still an ass.” I assume that in his breaks between media appearances, he learned something about being an infantry officer. And if we were discussing how the Marines conducted platoon level operations in Iraq his experience would be relevant. But we aren’t and it isn’t.
Moulton does what the dozen or so liberal Democrats who have ever lowered themselves to serve in the Armed Forces do, he uses his military experience to give himself credibility when talking about a subject he knows nothing about and about which his military experience does nothing to inform his opinion. In his “years” (c’mon Congressman, give me a break here) of training with the M-16/M-4 he should have learned, for instance, that the AR-15 is a much better and safer home defense weapon than a shotgun firing either rifled slugs, 0, or 00 buckshot. So, unless he’s putting home defense outside the bounds of a “reason” there is at least one very good reason for private citizens to own them.
Moulton goes on to present his solutions.
Congress can prevent future tragedies by requiring a background check for every gun purchase in America. Congress can prevent people on terrorism watch lists from buying guns. And Congress can lift the restrictions on the study of the causes of gun violence, so that we can at the very least better understand why this keeps happening.
What Moulton engages in here is
slinging bullsh** sophistry and Marxist rhetoric. Man, despite what Marx would have you believe, is not perfectable and Congress cannot prevent anything from happening. If the shooter in Orlando had used a pistol or shotgun he could have caused the same carnage. In 2001, a disgruntled janitor killed 8 and wounded 15 in a Japanese elementary school using a knife.
His “terror watch list” solution is a Pandora’s Box of constitutional rights violations and governmental abuses. If the President of the United States can’t even articulate the terrorist danger we are facing, who is going to be placed on a watch list and for what reason? There is ZERO evidence that Omar Mateen, despite and FBI investigation, three FBI interviews, and close association with a radical and imprisoned cleric and a future suicide bomber, was even placed on the no-fly list. Are we going to trust politically driven executive agencies to make these decisions. After the lawless manner in which the IRS, Justice, State, and the BATF have operated under Obama, why would we think any other agency would operate differently if given the ability to ban gun ownership?
The ban of government funding of gun violence exists because of a history of abuses of the program by people like Mouton who use government power and largess to inflict their views on everyone else.
Let’s be clear. Moulton’s service in Iraq is laudable but that experience has no bearing at all on the issue of gun control and certainly gives him no insights or moral authority. Moulton is advocating a naked power grab by the federal government because his sensibilities are offended. That is wrong.