Charles Krauthammer on AWB [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Charles Krauthammer on AWB


norton
12-21-2012, 05:16
Column in my paper today, CK- a journalist I generally agree with- stated a new AWB will not accomplish anything without confiscation of already existing supplies. That would be yours and mine.
It seems this issue is more then just liberal vs. conservative. Its urban vs. rural/or fly over country.
A man like CK, living in DC, can't turn around without running into someone. He lives in a crowded, congested, traffic filled environment. He cannot imagine in his mind there are places where these types of rifles can be safely and responsibly used.
How many of you regular AR/AK shooters live in urban America?

.264 magnum
12-21-2012, 05:57
Column in my paper today, CK- a journalist I generally agree with- stated a new AWB will not accomplish anything without confiscation of already existing supplies. That would be yours and mine.
It seems this issue is more then just liberal vs. conservative. Its urban vs. rural/or fly over country.
A man like CK, living in DC, can't turn around without running into someone. He lives in a crowded, congested, traffic filled environment. He cannot imagine in his mind there are places where these types of rifles can be safely and responsibly used.
How many of you regular AR/AK shooters live in urban America?

I live in Dallas and shoot ARs and AKs often. We have numerous indoor and outdoor ranges close by.

Chonny
12-21-2012, 06:06
He's right you know, the proposed AWB is useless they would have to retroactively ban all that crap to really affect anything at all and at the same time piss off everyone that has never thought of committing a gun related crime.

People can argue about whether or not they like ARs or not (I dont) but I think that people should have them for sporting purposes.

GAFinch
12-21-2012, 07:41
IIRC, he didn't say that he wanted a retroactive ban, just that a AWB was and would be useless without one. He knows good and well that confiscation would be very messy and bloody in this country. He's trying to offer up a dose of reality to people - neither option is viable so seek an alternative to gun control.

engineer151515
12-21-2012, 07:47
He's right you know, the proposed AWB is useless they would have to retroactively ban all that crap to really affect anything at all and at the same time piss off everyone that has never thought of committing a gun related crime.

People can argue about whether or not they like ARs or not (I dont) but I think that people should have them for sporting purposes.

I think people should have them for protection of life and rejection of tyranny - which can manifest itself in local, as well as national/international levels.

Maybe this guy had a point to make:
" "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

IMO: Sporting purposes are nice, but it isn't really the point of ownership.

byf43
12-21-2012, 07:53
An 'oldie but a goodie' - for your viewing pleasure.
(Notice Chucky Schumer's expressions.):supergrin:

Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment! - YouTube

certifiedfunds
12-21-2012, 07:58
It seems this issue is more then just liberal vs. conservative. Its urban vs. rural/or fly over country.


Which is why a big federal government that governs everyone the same way is bad.

Let the people of Chicago ban ARs if they want to. I don't care. Leave me alone.

JJohnson
12-21-2012, 07:59
He's absolutely right. Now when I am pressed to defend why I NEED a "high powered" assault weapon with high capacity clips [sic] I state that I do not need to justify my ownership of said weapons, but that I am taking this time to make a stand. It is clear from the data collected during the previous AW Ban that nothing of significance changed. Should this new AWB ban be passed, it too will be proven worthless the next time some ahole shoots up a shopping mall.

The left always decries the slippery slope theories. This is one case where it is clear as day that the AWB will not stop anything, and the momentum gained by its passage will certainly lead to further discussions about what to ban, or license next. It is up to us to convince the fudds and the collectors and the rest of the 76,000,000 gun owners out there to get off of their collective asses and help. [/rant]

gommer
12-21-2012, 20:19
Column in my paper today, CK- a journalist I generally agree with- stated a new AWB will not accomplish anything without confiscation of already existing supplies. That would be yours and mine.
It seems this issue is more then just liberal vs. conservative. Its urban vs. rural/or fly over country.
A man like CK, living in DC, can't turn around without running into someone. He lives in a crowded, congested, traffic filled environment. He cannot imagine in his mind there are places where these types of rifles can be safely and responsibly used.
How many of you regular AR/AK shooters live in urban America?


Well...

Have a look at the 2012 presidential election results, by county:
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=229826&stc=1&d=1356145948


Take note that almost all dense population centers turn out blue. The entire dang map is almost all red!

So yes, I agree -- it is urban vs rural. People who live in densely populated areas seem to have an expectation that they will be taken care of.

People who live in rural areas take pride in taking care of themselves.

But, more than anything - to me it shows that it truly is a case of the interests of the few trumping the interests of the many. For everything, really. It's what our electoral system has evolved into - and right now it heavily favors democrats because democrats generally get those densely populated areas.

What this does is creates a situation where the 'many', being those in urban areas, are able to ignore the needs of the 'few', those in rural areas.

Ohh no, we have smog. Let's pass legislation that affects 100% of the country because we who cover just 10% of the landmass are destroying the resources we have. NOT the other 90% - but they should suffer for our ignorance and overly dense population.

Ugh.

Sometimes, I really just hate people. :(

sjfrellc
12-21-2012, 20:26
Sartre said Hell is other people.

Krauthammer is right, but unless I see the article I don't believe he advocates confiscation, merely stating the obvious and having an astute observation that the 1994 weapons ban was a farce and nonsensical. A new ban would punish the law abiding more than prevent criminals.

hogfish
12-21-2012, 21:03
Which is why a big federal government that governs everyone the same way is bad.

Let the people of Chicago ban ARs if they want to. I don't care. Leave me alone.

"Leave me alone." :thumbsup: