So, I subscribed to the mailing list of "The Gun Guys", a political action group and public relations campaign masquerading as an anti-gun blog. That ensures a daily dose of intelligence on the anti's latest targets, tactics, and temperment. Most of the time, the content is offensive, idiotic, and just plain boring. But today... today's email was different. My jaw dropped. I'm used to the media telling blatant lies about firearms and firearms laws, because they are ignorant. But since he is a paid lobbiest, I have absolutely no idea what "The Gun Guys" excuse will be for this whopper:
Before 2004, it was illegal to own an assault weapon in America. You couldn't own them, you couldn't sell them, and if you were found doing either, you went to jail. But in 2004, the ban dropped, and our Congress failed to renew it (at the urging of the gun lobby).
Reality: for the entirety of our history, Americans have been able to own "assault weapons". The assault weapons "ban" did not ban owning assault weapons, or even selling them, it only banned manufacturing them. Even that was ineffective, as manufacturers complied with the law by removing one or cosmetic features from each firearm and continuing to sell them legally. Even if you accept the premise that the assault weapons ban actually banned assault weapons, however, it was in effect for 10 years in a nation whose history extends for over 200; for 95% of our nation's history it has been perfectly legal to manufacture, sell, or own an assault weapon. Characterizing that with the blanket description of "before 2004" is so misleading as to qualify as a deliberate lie by omission, built on top of another deliberate, outright lie.
Am I surprised? No, not really. I've long known that the anti-gun forces in this country are willing to do anything necessary for their cause, up to and including murder. Lying is nothing new. It was the sheer audacity of this incident that got to me. Anyone willing to lie that boldly has absolutely no fear of being contradicted or exposed. And I have no idea what that man's mind is like. How does he rationalize his attempt to convince the public of a lie in order to influence their vote on legislation that has already been convincingly proven ineffective?
I am quite willing to respect someone who disagrees with me, even while arguing with them, so long as they are willing to do the same. But I have no respect for someone whose tactics are dishonest. By that yardstick, I lost all respect for the anti-gun point of view years ago. They will lie, mislead, and cheat their way to their goals with the full support of the media. And that sickens me.
UPDATE: He lies again, the very next day.
The gun guys like to say that criminals ignore laws, and of course they do. That's why they're criminals. But they can't ignore strong, blanket regulations on where and when they can obtain guns. They can't ignore gun laws like an assault weapons ban-- under that law, if you have an assault weapon, you're going to jail. Period.
The so-called assault weapons ban criminalized the manufacture of so-called "assault weapons" following the date of the law, not their ownership, possession, or sale -- unless the ownership, possession, or sale involved one of the weapons manufactured after the law passed. Such post-ban weapons were designated "law enforcement only" and peasants could get in trouble for having one. But those manufactured before the ban were fully legal to possess or sell even while the ban was in effect.
This entry was published Mon Mar 13 19:14:47 CST 2006 by TriggerFinger
and last updated 2006-03-13 19:14:47.0.