How about, if instead, we use this opportunity in front of a mass audience to educate?
So what could Chris Cox have said that would not have been an outright denial of our rights?
How about something along the lines of:
First, Glenn, Paul is wrong. For someone who's a national voice for changing gun laws, you'd think he'd at least know what the current law says.
The 1934 law didn't ban machine guns. The government was afraid it couldn't do that without running afoul of the Second Amendment, so instead they passed a $200 tax.
What that means is, right now, there are probably over a quarter million lawfully owned full auto capable firearms privately owned and enjoyed by our fellow Americans--our friends, neighbors and relatives. And they do this in a remarkably peaceful manner. This has been the case for the last 70-plus YEARS.
So if Paul-- who monitors the news and is quick to issue press releases every time there's a highly publicized criminal shooting-- is going to sit here and tell us these people are a danger, that we need to make their ownership of this property illegal and spend law enforcement resources rounding these firearms up, maybe he could tell us how often these gun owners have committed violent crimes with their firearms in the past seven decades--just so we can all see how big the problem really is.
Or some such. We give up nothing and score a few points, plus leave our opponent with nothing substantive to offer for a reply.
I'd expect someone who makes a lucrative living arguing Second Amendment issues--one who employs a staff that includes professional wordsmiths--would be able to take this basic concept and run with it--as opposed to taking the basic concept of "shall not be infringed" and running away from it.
That is, assuming that's his belief. Me, I don't buy that this is some grand unspoken wink-wink-hush-and-we'll-get-to-it-later master strategy. I do Mr. Cox the honor of recognizing him as a policy articulator of the first order, and take him at his word.
I never thought about it that way. I can here Shmuckie Shumer and all the rest of his anti 2nd cronies coming out with those exact words!!gunsmoker said:"Well if the tight restrictions on machineguns have worked so well, and yet they're still available for people serious enough about owning one to meet all the qualifications, let's regulate ALL FIREARMS the same way!"
M249 said:What's GCO's position on machine guns? 8)
http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/about/GCO believes that citizens of Georgia and the United States have the right to own and carry the firearm of their choice for any reason other than to commit a crime.
:exactly:ptsmith24 said:M249 said:What's GCO's position on machine guns? 8)http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/about/GCO believes that citizens of Georgia and the United States have the right to own and carry the firearm of their choice for any reason other than to commit a crime.
I'd say that just about covers it. 8)