Good News: The Time For Polite Debate On Gun Banning Is Over

When was it ever polite? The gun grabbers have been screeching about gun control, ie, banning guns from the possession of Other People, for a long time, much in the way they have been screeching about making Free Speech one sided. CNBC gives a platform to Ron Insana, their senior analyst and commentator

The time for polite debate on gun control is over

It would seem that the time for polite debate about gun control is over. Of course, that could have been said many times in the last few decades, beginning in Austin in 1966, and later in Columbine, in Newtown, in Orlando and, of course, now in Las Vegas.

The absolute horror of the Las Vegas massacre should finally make it abundantly clear, to any rational person, that the framers of the Constitution did not have the rights of Stephen Paddock in mind when crafting and drafting the Second Amendment.

Last time I checked, the 2nd Amendment didn’t give people the right to use their Right to commit mass murder. Nope, just read it again, it doesn’t.

We need a much more radical approach to the problems of guns in America.

What’s more radical than calling for gun roundups and the abolition of the 2nd Amendment?

And yet, the NRA, “gun enthusiasts” and Second Amendment conservatives fight tooth and nail for the right to own any, and all, kinds of weapons, even if one’s name is on a terror watch list or a person has a history of mental illness.

These old canards? Sheesh. Get some new material.

Among the more radical solutions that I would propose is for the Congress, the executive and judicial branches of government, in concert with the states, to clearly define what was, and is, meant by a “well-regulated militia,” and refine and re-define the Second Amendment to suit the times in which we live.

In other words, craft legislation to enact a gun grab from law abiding citizens. Isn’t it funny how Democrats always go after the law abiding citizens, rather than the criminals? It’s almost like they support criminals.

It is clear that the Founding Fathers, who lived before the invention of the Gatling gun, could not have envisioned musket-armed civilians, who could fire only one round per minute, commanding the right to hunt turkeys, or humans, with modern ferocity.

Another canard, as the Founders envisioned a document that would last the test of time, which it has. But, here we go, in the very next paragraph

Hence, a total, outright ban on semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons seems not only reasonable but also necessary.

So, the vast majority of guns, since few use revolvers and bolt action (or similar style) rifles. They want to take away the nice, light, easy to use weapons that many women use to protect themselves from the violent criminals enabled by soft on crime Democratic Party policies. I wonder if Insana even understands what a sem-automatic weapon actually is.

And, since this is CNBC, Insana wants investors to make a difference

But investors should challenge these merchants of death. They have done so with other so-called “sin stocks,” like tobacco and alcohol companies.

They have fought the actions of large corporate polluters or companies whose carbon footprints are unreasonably large.

They have brought about positive changes by being true activist investors, not angling for some financially engineered profit, but by making companies more accountable.

Good luck with that.

There also needs to be a massive cultural campaign to re-educate the gun-toting, testosterone-fueled population who believe that carrying a gun is “manly.”

Recently, the largest growing classes of people purchasing firearms, primarily for self defense, are women and those in the LGBT community. But, it’s cute how Insana wants the Government to use propaganda, like the Soviet Union and communist China (and Nazi Germany) to force change to Wrongthink, something the Founders were dead set against.

There’s only so much I can excerpt, and plenty more nutty gun grabbing in the article. It’s funny, Democrats get upset when we say that they’re trying to grab our guns, right before they tell us they want to grab our guns. (not their own guns, of course)