The quote of the day is presented by Guns.com.
When it’s time to have a national conversation about guns, who better to arrange it than…The New York Times? Their stated aim: move the debate about guns and gun violence forward. Translation: gin up more unfounded public fear and put pressure on legislators to further restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
Toward that end, they’ve brought together pairs of individuals to talk about guns. The first pair includes a Philadelphia attorney (Angela) and a retired Army brigadier general (Tom). Both are gun owners.
Angela: AR-15s have been used in numerous mass murders. They’re weapons designed for the battlefield. I’m surprised that you don’t support a ban.
Tom: If I thought a ban would be useful, I would turn in anything I own. The practical solution is the control of magazines. I got my first semiautomatic rifle in eighth grade, a graduation present. If there were a high-capacity magazine, something with more than 10 rounds, in it, it could do just as much damage as an AR-15. If I built a 30-round extended magazine for your Sig, it could do the same. But ARs are black and scary looking, thus feared by the uninformed and loved by kooks who decide they want to shoot people.
Hunting with a 10-round mag is no handicap. Thirty-round mags are offensive implements and should be controlled. But most restrictions on weapons of war came with the National Firearms Act of 1934. (1934!) We need a modernized version of that law.
Angela: I’m stunned at your level of knowledge. I had no idea that these additional weapons and modifications were available. And you’re right, our current legislation hasn’t caught up to what is actually being purchased, modified and used by U.S. citizens.
But our current situation — and your arsenal — seems to go way beyond what the forefathers may have intended. I’m shocked that anyone would need 20 guns. It’s like we are all preparing for a war. And with our ineffective Congress, I don’t expect much to change.
Tom: How ironic is it that all of my guns, except one, are used for hunting, but the gun you own for defense is meant to be used on people? I own various target guns, small guns for small game, larger guns for larger game and at least six that are family heirlooms handed down for generations. Your military characterization of my collection as an “arsenal” feels judgmental.
– Rachel L. Harris and