Scripting Anti-Gun: A .50-Caliber Crock
A .50-Caliber Crock
by Matthew Bastian
March 08, 2007 01:00 PM EST
If the anti-gun lobby has a script to follow, it must read something like this:
A) Single out a certain type or category of firearm, even if a little imagination is required to create it; b) demonize said firearm as being useful only to criminals and drooling, inbred rednecks; and c) wait for a sympathetic media to jump on the bait.
After that, soccer moms everywhere will be clamoring for the “(fill in the blank) Gun Control Act.”
The tried and true tactic has been used repeatedly. In the 70’s it was used on “Saturday Night Specials.” In the 80’s, the target was the “plastic gun” that could supposedly avoid airport metal detectors. And in the 90’s, “assault weapons” were the villain.
Cutting through the spin, of course, a “Saturday Night Special” was just a sinister term for an affordable handgun. The polymer firearms with which news programs like 60 Minutes tried to scare us in fact still had plenty of metal parts, including the slide. And “assault weapons,” which are difficult to classify under normal circumstances, were an undefined mess when politicians got hold of the term. When the dust settled, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban covered any rifle with certain cosmetic features, like a folding stock, pistol grip, or bayonet mount. (If your community experienced a precipitous drop in felonious bayonet charges right around 1995, give credit where credit is due.)
Enter the new enemy: the .50-caliber rifle. Already banned in California, the weapon is now under fire (pun intended) in New Jersey, where a push is underway to make its sale illegal. As part of their opening day dog-and-pony show, one of the bill’s sponsors said the rifle could cause major worries if it fell into the hands of criminal street gangs.
This is hardly a revelation. Any gun in the hands of a violent criminal is a reason to worry; but then again so is a souvenir snow globe from Disneyland. The question is: would it happen?
It is highly unlikely. The average .50-caliber rifle weighs 30 pounds, is five feet long, and costs anywhere from $3,000 - $10,000. It strains credulity to think that a drug dealer would opt for such an expensive, heavy, and unwieldy weapon. Are you trying to stiff me? Wait here while I go to my trunk!
Adding to the drama and hyperbole, another proponent, Gregory Paw of the NJ Division of Criminal Justice, offered that, “the only thing that comes out of this weapon is evil.”
Well, no, Mr. Paw: the only thing that comes out of the weapon is a bullet. In most cases that bullet is headed towards either a range target or some shady individual who ran afoul of the US military. Most people would consider the latter scenario to be a good thing. (Evil is what comes out of a stereo playing a Richard Marx record.)
Taking the hysteria a step further, the anti-gun lobby insists that it’s not just street criminals that should be cause for concern. They would have us believe that terrorists, too, could have designs on these rifles…to shoot down airliners.
Now, it is true that the .50-caliber round packs enough punch to disable stationary vehicles, provided the shooter knows where the vital bits are (engine blocks and the like). The key there, though, is stationary.
As ridiculous as it is to suggest that a drug dealer might try to use a 30-pound rifle in his daily trade, it’s even more so to suggest that anyone, including an expert marksman, could take down a moving Airbus or Boeing jet from distance with a few rounds.
That would make David’s “Hail Mary” stone to Goliath’s noggin look like a routine shot by comparison.
Plus, if Al-Qaeda really had a plot in mind using these rifles, would a law limiting their sale down at Bob’s Army/Navy really send the dejected terrorists back to the drawing board? Perhaps they would just huddle outside the store, like a group of kids trying to figure out who looks old enough to buy beer? No, Abdul, your ID looks better. Mine says I’m 72 and named Esther Sorensen.
Unique among the freedoms in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment has gradually been inverted and put on the defensive. Rather than the burden of proof resting with those who would curtail the freedom, its defenders have now to justify the “need” on a case-by-case basis. One can only imagine the reaction if the New York Times, so fond of piously wrapping itself in the First Amendment, was subject to the same scrutiny.
After all, did they really need to publish the story about the government’s monitoring of SWIFT transactions?
That suggestion, of course, is ludicrous. But so is the notion that civilians must show need or get government approval to drink from the tap of their constitutional rights. Once we start going down that road, the argument becomes completely subjective - and endless. If the gun-banning crowd could somehow convince the media that antique muzzle-loaders were the new favorite among street thugs and terrorists, it wouldn’t be long before we saw the proposal of the “Kentucky Rifle Bill.”
Which would suit the anti-gun lobby and their well-worn playbook just fine. They know that in a game of yards, every inch matters.
by Matthew Bastian
March 08, 2007 01:00 PM EST
If the anti-gun lobby has a script to follow, it must read something like this:
A) Single out a certain type or category of firearm, even if a little imagination is required to create it; b) demonize said firearm as being useful only to criminals and drooling, inbred rednecks; and c) wait for a sympathetic media to jump on the bait.
After that, soccer moms everywhere will be clamoring for the “(fill in the blank) Gun Control Act.”
The tried and true tactic has been used repeatedly. In the 70’s it was used on “Saturday Night Specials.” In the 80’s, the target was the “plastic gun” that could supposedly avoid airport metal detectors. And in the 90’s, “assault weapons” were the villain.
Cutting through the spin, of course, a “Saturday Night Special” was just a sinister term for an affordable handgun. The polymer firearms with which news programs like 60 Minutes tried to scare us in fact still had plenty of metal parts, including the slide. And “assault weapons,” which are difficult to classify under normal circumstances, were an undefined mess when politicians got hold of the term. When the dust settled, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban covered any rifle with certain cosmetic features, like a folding stock, pistol grip, or bayonet mount. (If your community experienced a precipitous drop in felonious bayonet charges right around 1995, give credit where credit is due.)
Enter the new enemy: the .50-caliber rifle. Already banned in California, the weapon is now under fire (pun intended) in New Jersey, where a push is underway to make its sale illegal. As part of their opening day dog-and-pony show, one of the bill’s sponsors said the rifle could cause major worries if it fell into the hands of criminal street gangs.
This is hardly a revelation. Any gun in the hands of a violent criminal is a reason to worry; but then again so is a souvenir snow globe from Disneyland. The question is: would it happen?
It is highly unlikely. The average .50-caliber rifle weighs 30 pounds, is five feet long, and costs anywhere from $3,000 - $10,000. It strains credulity to think that a drug dealer would opt for such an expensive, heavy, and unwieldy weapon. Are you trying to stiff me? Wait here while I go to my trunk!
Adding to the drama and hyperbole, another proponent, Gregory Paw of the NJ Division of Criminal Justice, offered that, “the only thing that comes out of this weapon is evil.”
Well, no, Mr. Paw: the only thing that comes out of the weapon is a bullet. In most cases that bullet is headed towards either a range target or some shady individual who ran afoul of the US military. Most people would consider the latter scenario to be a good thing. (Evil is what comes out of a stereo playing a Richard Marx record.)
Taking the hysteria a step further, the anti-gun lobby insists that it’s not just street criminals that should be cause for concern. They would have us believe that terrorists, too, could have designs on these rifles…to shoot down airliners.
Now, it is true that the .50-caliber round packs enough punch to disable stationary vehicles, provided the shooter knows where the vital bits are (engine blocks and the like). The key there, though, is stationary.
As ridiculous as it is to suggest that a drug dealer might try to use a 30-pound rifle in his daily trade, it’s even more so to suggest that anyone, including an expert marksman, could take down a moving Airbus or Boeing jet from distance with a few rounds.
That would make David’s “Hail Mary” stone to Goliath’s noggin look like a routine shot by comparison.
Plus, if Al-Qaeda really had a plot in mind using these rifles, would a law limiting their sale down at Bob’s Army/Navy really send the dejected terrorists back to the drawing board? Perhaps they would just huddle outside the store, like a group of kids trying to figure out who looks old enough to buy beer? No, Abdul, your ID looks better. Mine says I’m 72 and named Esther Sorensen.
Unique among the freedoms in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment has gradually been inverted and put on the defensive. Rather than the burden of proof resting with those who would curtail the freedom, its defenders have now to justify the “need” on a case-by-case basis. One can only imagine the reaction if the New York Times, so fond of piously wrapping itself in the First Amendment, was subject to the same scrutiny.
After all, did they really need to publish the story about the government’s monitoring of SWIFT transactions?
That suggestion, of course, is ludicrous. But so is the notion that civilians must show need or get government approval to drink from the tap of their constitutional rights. Once we start going down that road, the argument becomes completely subjective - and endless. If the gun-banning crowd could somehow convince the media that antique muzzle-loaders were the new favorite among street thugs and terrorists, it wouldn’t be long before we saw the proposal of the “Kentucky Rifle Bill.”
Which would suit the anti-gun lobby and their well-worn playbook just fine. They know that in a game of yards, every inch matters.
posted by Stephen at 5:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home - Resource Library and Main Page