The Assault Weapons Ban: How Silly Was It? (Part Two)
Bob Owens on Pajamas Media.
Also see Part One here.
Explain to me how it failed, exactly, please? Because I still can’t have an assault rifle… okay, I’m kidding.
The real point of the whole exercise was power play; could they make this stick? Would they be able to expand on it? One of the commentators from part 1 referred to “boiling the frog”; this is likely very close to the truth. Had it worked, they could have added more features, listed more models, etc., etc., until everything was banned.
But where, really, was the failure? Was it in the umpteen zillion work-arounds? The gaps and holes? The ignorance of the drafters? I don’t think so.
I’m thinking it was a failure of will and imagination on the part of the antis; they did not strenuously enough, or creatively enough, or rabidly enough pursue their own agenda. Of course, kudos to the forces of good who worked to defeat them, but a committed foe with zeal and energy might have overcome. Thank the Lord (and pass the ammunition) they’re a bunch of quaking sheep…
It was just a bridge too far for their agenda at that time. But tell me, if say the Christian right managed to pass a law repealing Row V. Wade except for umpteen million loop holes, don’t you think they would still consider it a victory? The fact that the antis were driving the debate and in the driver’s seat legislatively is still a pretty scary thought. They have learned a few lessons from this, and the next time they try it they will make sure they have the political ability to make it stick that time. Be wary.
Designed by Murdoc.