Q&A – The Ban Assault Weapons Now Proposed Amendment

Today’s entry - Absolutely the gun ban could pass. I know people who support guns but don't get the propaganda "assault weapons" narrative, or the "common sense gun reform" narrative. ANY infringement on your 2A is dangerous. Every year the tyrannical G at all levels is arming. If their intent on banning “assault weapons” was legit for the purpose of preventing more school shootings, wouldn’t handguns be included since they’re much easier to hide while trespassing school security?

Bottom Line: These are a couple of the notes I received after Tuesday’s story on the Ban Assault Weapons Now proposed amendment readying for the consideration by Florida’s Supreme Court. To catch you up to speed, the language proposed essentially suggests that any firearm and magazine that holds in excess of ten rounds would be banned in Florida if passed. Existing firearms legally obtained would be grandfathered in.  

My issue with the organization right along has been the use of an emotional appeal by using the name and terminology, “assault weapons” as opposed to a more transparent appeal based on what they’re attempting to outlaw. The name Ban Assault Weapons Now is intellectually insulting. 

The definition of assault is a physical attack, and the definition of a weapon is a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage. Not to get bogged down with facts in pragmatism in where pure emotional ignorance is desired but is it possible for an inanimate object to conduct a physical attack? Now if they want a constitutional amendment to attempt to ban people who attack others with guns, I'm there. I’m pretty sure we have laws that cover that stuff. This organization is built on a false premise. 

Moreover, yes, if you took the organization’s name at face value, they’d be looking to ban handguns too. Along with knives, arrows, tasers, darts, you name it. If it was designed to harm or create physical damage, they’ll very quickly tell you that’s absurd and they’re only looking for “sensible reforms”. That’s the way the game is played. I have no doubt this group is interested in doing far more than even what they’re attempting here but this was likely researched and deemed to be about as far as they could go and have a chance of getting it passed this time around. 

The biggest false premise of them all is ignoring the purpose of the second amendment. The founders which fought a revolution against the British government with the “Assault Weapons” of the day, wanted to ensure that we had the ability to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government if ever necessary again. All you need to do is look at Cuba and Venezuela to see what happens when citizens are defenseless against radical governments. 

Submit your questions by one of these methods. 

Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com

Twitter: @brianmuddradio

Facebook: Brian Mudd https://www.facebook.com/brian.mudd1

Photo by: Leigh Vogel/Getty Images for MoveOn.org

 

title

Content Goes Here