Bill Kristol: People don’t have a right to assault rifles
Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol on Sunday broke with fellow conservatives and backed restrictions the sales of “assault weapons” like the AR-15 that was allegedly used to kill at least 12 people and wound 58 others in Aurora, Colorado last week.
“People have a right to handguns and hunting rifles,” Kristol told Fox News host Chris Wallace. “I don’t think they have a right to semi-automatic, quasi-machine guns that can be used to shoot a hundred bullets at a time.”
“And I actually think the Democrats are being foolish as they’re being cowardly,” he added. “I think there is more support for some moderate forms of gun control if they separated clearly from a desire to take away everyone’s handguns or rifles.”
And you are being obtuse, Bill Kristol. The NRA has a stranglehold on most Republican politicians and many Democrats as well. This well-funded organization vigorously opposes ANY gun control legislation. Background checks, trigger locks, waiting periods-all opposed by the gun lobby. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin says that owning high-capacity magazines of the type that allowed psycho Aurora mass-murderer James Holmes to shoot a hundred rounds without stopping to reload is a constitutional right. Conspiracy theorists are already reporting that the attack was staged by the government to push forth anti-gun laws meant to strip Americans of their right to bear arms, despite ZERO action on the part of President Obama to do any such thing.
Bill Kristol shall soon be reaping the wrath of conservatives, although he and his father have been the voice of conservatism for two generations. Sure, most thinking Americans could see the logic of not arming mentally ill people, but the risks to our freedom is too great, according to the gun lobby. There should be unfettered access to all sorts of firearms, including assault rifles that serve no practical purpose other than to shoot dozens of people at once. People that say they want them for hunting are definitely not hunters. These people also advocate carrying weapons at all times in all places, including bars, where drunk people get into altercations based on a glance. They say that if a single person had been carrying in that theater, he could have shot the assailant and ended the massacre.
This man entered the darkened theater and set off a canister of some sort of gas, then began shooting people like fish in a barrel. He was covered from head to toe in protective gear. A person who tried to shoot him with a handgun would most likely have missed or struck his armor. In the meantime, the spray from the perpetrator’s assault rifle would have cut short this would-be hero’s life. Alternatively, in the chaos, the hero might have mistakenly shot a fleeing movie-goer in the dark and hazy theater. If, however, there had been an off-duty officer or highly trained soldier in the theater, he MIGHT have had a chance at stopping this guy. Imagine if half of the adults in the room had weapons on them. Would 25 people with guns have been able to subdue this guy as he was indiscriminately firing? I can imagine there would be some collateral damage in this scenario. Now, how about if everyone carried semi-auto assault weapons with 100-round magazines? That might reduce the instances of gun violence in this country, right? What you think?