Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell showed up on CNBC's "Swawk Box" show recently in a segment titled "Gun and Ammunition Sales Spike". (click see the video.) Unfortunately, the purpose of his appearance was not to talk about why people were buying up guns and ammo, but to push bringing back the so-called "assault weapons" ban.
Before pursuing his comments, let's all remember that this so-called "assault weapons ban" has been modified from the earlier ban. It is much more inclusive about which weapons it bans.
Worse, some of the wording is intended to make it apply to "generic" (unnamed) guns with certain features. Adding certain accessories to a semi-auto rifle could turn it into an evil gun and you'd face felony charges. In addition it names new guns that were never banned -- the venerable M1-Carbine, the Ruger Mini-14, any rifle used by the U.S. military.
It has little to do with safety and everything to do with keeping the government in control of firearms that are the most effective in a serious battle.
The Governor's comments should give everyone pause. It's an excellent example of deliberate, decietful misinformation and political arrogance. But I trust readers can judge for themselves; the video speaks volumes.
Rendell claims, in his own words, that firearms like the AR-15 and AK rifles are at once;
- Difficult to operate
- Jam easily
- Fire at short range
- Are not effective (for home defense)
- Put out a ton of fire all at one time
- Are very powerful
- Bullets will "blow through" a police car from over a block away
- Have only one purpose; to kill and to maim
And my favorite part is that after he says all this, he then says these guns belong "only in the hands of the police and military." Say what?
Is Rendell saying he wants police to have rifles that are only good for killing and maiming people? That's what he wants for his police officers? If their only purpose is "to kill and to maim" then why in the hell are we saying these are okay for police to use on civilians?
Or is Rendell saying that only police and military personnel should have to suffer with a complicated, hard-to-use rifle that frequently jams, isn't very effective but is powerful enough to blow right through a police car? Why is Rendell allowing his state to even purchase crappy guns like this?
Do politicans think we are all this stupid? You have to believe that the rifle fires a lot of "short range" bullets, but those bullets have enough energy to "blow through" a police car from a block or more away. Or that police agencies from NYPD to LAPD and their SWAT teams intentionally picked a difficult to use and jam-prone rifle?
What this really points out is that politicians, and many gun control proponents, are clueless when it comes to firearms. It also points out that politicians, like Rendell, will say almost anything to paint a frightening image of firearms to the public.
We get our share of truely idiotic statements here in California from the lamestream media. We have politicians who repeat the tired, discredited Brady Campaign talking points.
What can we do about it?
This is the easy part. Whenever you see or hear misinformation about guns in the media, complain! Write to the media outlet. Write a brief but polite "feedback" comment taking the source to task. Brief, easy to read comments that get the point across are better than long winded diatribes or personal attacks on the speaker.
The reason for doing this is that there are a lot of folks who will read the comments left for a particular on-line newspaper article. More comments we create that refute and discredit the misinformation, the better chance we have of changing public opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment