Here’s an idea.
How about an assault pressure cooker ban?
In view of last week’s events in Boston, it makes more sense than an assault rifle ban. (Keep in mind that Obamacare probably will not pay for the surgical removal of my tongue from my cheek.)
It’s now well known that a cheap pressure cooker (Wal Mart has them as low as $42.87 for a T-Fal model) can be turned into an IED, which can kill or maim a lot faster than a Bushmaster 223 with a 30 round magazine. Ask the folks who were gathered near the finish line of the Boston Marathon last week.
Where are the “if we can just save one life” folks on this one?
I’m pretty sure that the Second Amendment does not cover pressure cookers, so why not ban them in addition to ball bearings and printed circuit boards that can receive radio signals and switch something on?
A more reasonable question to ask, of course, would be if those folks in the Boston area, who were ordered back into their houses during the manhunt for the two Chechnyan punks who apparently set off the IEDs at the Boston Marathon, would have felt more comfortable with a handgun or an assault rifle to protect themselves and their families?
I know that if this had happened in Northern Nevada, there would have been a whole lot of weapons being loaded and cocked and kept handy until the manhunt was over.
At the risk of being accused of politicizing a tragedy, this is the exact reason we do not and should not ban guns in this country. You have a guaranteed constitutional right to defend yourself from nutjobs like these clowns and, for that matter, anybody else who would do your family and yourself any harm.
Understand that you are not required to do so. But you have the right to do so. And, should you wish to be pro-active in a situation such as this, the nanny staters should not be standing in your way.
One such nanny stater is our own Harry Reid (D-Washington DC Ritz Carleton), who has now completed his transition from a one-time blue dog Democrat who understood exactly the nature of the state he represented to a Barney Frank limousine liberal who could care less about who actually sent him to Washington because he’s above all that.
In last week’s Senate votes on the President’s gun control bill, Reid actually voted FOR an assault weapons ban.
That’s right, Dirty Harry voted to stop me from owning my M1 Carbine, the assault rifle that won World War Two. The rifle we made six and a half million of and sold surplus to citizens’ marksmanship groups in the 50s and 60s for around $21.
He lost by a good 20 votes because even in a Senate run by Harry Reid, there’s enough good sense to realize such a bill was going nowhere.
California Senator Dianne Feinstein poo pooed the need for “assault weapons” in Boston on Fox News Sunday:
CHRIS WALLACE: Senator, reaction to the Boston bombings has spilled into other issues, including gun control. There are some conservatives who say — some conservatives who say that, when a million people in Boston were forced to stay in their homes, that a lot of those people — particularly in Watertown where they were going door to door and there was a real concern that this fellow might be on the loose, might break into their house, might take hostages — would people like to have guns?
SENATOR FEINSTEIN: Oh, some may have, yes. But if where you’re going is do they need an assault weapon? I don’t think so. As the vice president said —
WALLACE: Shouldn’t they have the right to decide whatever weapon they feel they need to protect themselves?
FEINSTEIN: Well, how about a machine gun then? We did away with machine guns because of how they’re used. I think we should do away with assault weapons because of how they’re used.
WALLACE: Semiautomatics, that’s the most popular rifle in America.
FEINSTEIN: And you could use a 12-gauge shotgun and have a good defensive effect. And there’s the element of surprise. Now, you’ve got police all over the place in Watertown, so I don’t really think that this is applicable. I think there are people that want to make this argument, but 12-gauge shotgun, there are many weapons, 2,000-plus weapons that are available to people for choice without an assault weapon.
This is a woman who simply cannot see reality.
As a neighbor of mine succinctly put it, “I have great respect for the police, but they’re reacting. I want to be pro-active.”
That is exactly what people like Feinstein fear.
Pro-active citizens? We can’t have that. They might hurt someone.
Fortunately, our founding fathers already thought about it way back in 1789; and they added it to the Constitution right after Freedom of Speech and Religion.
So, it would seem that no matter what Feinstein and Reid do, they cannot win.
As long as we don’t back down, that is. And if there was ever a reason not to back down, it’s the fact that Reid could betray the state that sent him to Washington.