I hate lies

It should come as no surprise to anyone who bothers to read this tiny little corner of the blogosphere to learn that I am rather fond of firearms. Nah. That’s not it. I like guns (that is a hard word for a guy who split 22 years between the USCG and the USN to toss around, but I am getting better). I use them to hunt, for defense of self and others, for punching little round holes in targets and as a way of ensuring my children will inherit no liquid assets. So, feel free to think I am somewhat biased. I am.

I said all that and need to add this: I really do not care how you view firearms. If you like them, great! Maybe we can go to the range, sometime, and waste money disguised as ammo. If you dislike them intensely, that’s fine too. Really. I might find your dislike odd and disagree with your reasoning, but ultimately, that is your decision to make. I would not dream of trying to force you to believe otherwise. The other thing I would not and will not do is attempt to change your mind with dishonest arguments.

Several times over the past three or four years I have encountered something interesting. When I have attempted to correct, as gently and politely as I know how I promise, people who use the specifically defined term “assault rifle” and the vague, nebulous and lacking-in-a-coherent-definition term “assault weapon” as synonyms, I have gotten an interesting response. I have been told that I am “using semantics to avoid facing the truth”. When I have referred my college sociology professor who said “fuzzy definitions produce fuzzy thoughts” and suggested that perhaps many gun control advocates are seeking to regulate something they do not understand, I have had no end of people tell me I was wrong and that “I/we understand guns and how they work, completely.” And, of course, I have been told everything from “no one wants to take your guns” to “no one is contemplating a wide-ranging ban on guns.”

Uh huh.

For today, I will limit myself to the current bill’s attempt to ban most handguns.

“No.” you say. “That’s not what is going on at all.”

Uh huh.

“D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

“(i) A threaded barrel.

“(ii) A second pistol grip.

“(iii) A barrel shroud.

“(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

“(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.”

If you do not recognize this, it is a section from the proposed “Assault Weapons Ban of 2018“, which serves to let us know what firearms and sorts of firearms are included in said ban.

Please note the first 21 words, which I have placed in bold. Now that you have done that, I have a question. How many semiautomatic pistols have the “capacity” to accept a threaded barrel?

Virtually all of them. In fact, there is no difficulty in finding one that will accept a threaded barrel. It is quite difficult to find one that will not.

Next question. What is the best-selling and most popular type of handgun?

A semiautomatic pistol with a detachable magazine.

Note that the language says “capacity” is the important characteristic, not the presence or absence of a threaded barrel. I am forced to conclude, then, that if gun control advocates do, indeed, understand guns and how they work, that their insistence of not wanting a wide-ranging ban on guns is a lie. They are seeking to ban the most common and most popular type of handgun.

No one is perfect. I get that. Truly, I do. People make mistakes with words. It’s just that you cannot have it both ways. Either the people who write and knowledgeably support such bills are attempting to regulate that of which they are incredibly ignorant, or they are liars.

One can be corrected with education, if dealing with people who are amenable to education. Liars are a different matter, so, you call it. Do they not know what they’re talking about, or have they been lying?