Q&A of the Day – The Ban Assault Weapons Now proposed amendment

Q&A of the Day – The Ban Assault Weapons Now proposed amendment

Each day I’ll feature a listener question that’s been submitted by one of these methods. 

Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com

Twitter: @brianmuddradio

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

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 hand guns 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 regarding 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 grand fathered in. The question I posed was whether you thought it would pass. It would require 60% of the vote. 

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. 

Here’s the definition of assault:

  • A physical attack

And the definition of a weapon:

  • 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.Get my point. If the premise of anything is false, anything built on it is to. This organization is built on a false premise. 

To the point of the second note. 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... Now of course to the point of the first listener, they’ll very quickly tell you that’s absurd and they’re only looking for “sensible reforms”. And 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. But 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. 

Sponsored Content

Sponsored Content