🚀 go-pugleaf

Twelve minutes long but worth watching in full, partly because 
Gingrich is in fine form and partly because it�s a nice 
demonstration of how futile and bad-faith the �debate� over guns 
is. Morgan�s point is straightforward: If gun-rights fans think 
it�s okay to ban machine guns because rapid-fire weapons are too 
dangerous for the public to own, why not ban assault rifles?

Granted, automatics fire much more rapidly than semiautomatics, 
but you can still get off an awful lot of shots quickly with an 
AR-15 if you�re pulling the trigger fast enough. Gingrich comes 
at that logic from the other direction: If semiautomatic rifles 
are banworthy because you can fire rapidly in volume with them, 
why aren�t semiautomatic pistols also banworthy?

The answer, if you talk to an honest gun-control advocate, is 
that they are. They�d love to ban all semiautomatics. It�s 
wildly illogical to focus only on one type if you�re worried 
about rapid-fire weapons, to the point where Morgan is left 
arguing here that we need to get rid of rifles but not pistols 
because, um, well, that�s the sort of weapon that lunatics like 
James Holmes and Adam Lanza seem to prefer � as if they wouldn�t 
resort to pistols if rifles were off the market. (Holmes and 
Lanza both had semiautomatic pistols on them during the 
shootings, in fact.

My hunch is that the reason spree killers prefer �assault 
rifles� to pistols has little to do with lethality and 
everything to do with image. They�re on an insane power trip, 
and a bigger gun that resembles a machine gun adds to the 
thrill.) But Morgan knows that banning all semiautomatics won�t 
fly politically, at least right now, because most Americans 
believe in the right to own a gun and semiautomatic pistols are 
by far the most common type of gun that they own.

So he�s forced to push this phony distinction between rifles and 
pistols to keep up the �reasonable regulations� facade and 
reassure fencesitters that he only wants to eliminate a few 
really dangerous guns, not the sort of guns found in many 
American homes that are � almost precisely as dangerous as the 
�really dangerous� ones he wants to ban.

Hence Gingrich�s point about the gun-control slippery slope. You 
can�t trust Morgan et al. to ban one class of weapons but no 
other; the logic of their position ultimately won�t allow it. 
And the failure of their polices will only be used as an 
argument that they haven�t gone far enough. That�s why he�s 
emphasizing Chicago. But never mind all that.

Per WaPo, it sounds like Obama might have some of the Sandy Hook 
families in attendance at the SOTU, so unless you want to be a 
hateful bastard who doesn�t care that children were murdered, 
it�s time to stand aside.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/25/gingrich-to-piers-morgan-
lets-hold-gun-control-hearings-in-chicago/

--
Are you obligated as an armed civilian, to defend unarmed 
liberals while you are both under fire by foreign agents of the 
outlaw Obama administration?

No.  Shoot the liberals immediately so they can't stab you in 
the back while you are defending yourself, then return a 
controlled rate of aimed fire.

����