Supporters of banning abortions and unrestricted access to rapid-fire weapons have something in common — a preference for bait and switch debate tactics. They provide emotionally charged justifications for policies that in reality have less politically potent rationales.
This is their response to a dilemma. If they did not use exaggerated melodramatic rhetoric that calls for policies much more disruptive than those they actually support, it would be harder to sway public opinion.
For the anti-choice side, making it illegal for women to decide — based on the circumstances of their lives — whether or not to go through with the difficult process of carrying a pregnancy to term because of the religious or philosophical objections of others is a hard sell. So, they label it “murder.” But they lack the courage of their conviction — in this case literally. If abortion is murder, a woman who voluntarily undergoes one is a murderer. Obviously, if she took a one-year-old child to a person who she knew was going to kill the child, and she actively assisted in the act, she should — and would — be criminally liable. But when Donald TrumpDonald TrumpWatchdog sues FEC for closing investigation into Rick Scott, allied super PAC Iowa man sentenced to 10 years for shooting Black teen at pro-Trump parade The SALT deduction cap makes it harder for communities to recover MORE blurted out that he favored prosecuting the potential mother, he was immediately contradicted by his new-found anti-abortion allies, who understand that the overwhelming majority of people do not favor jailing women who have had abortions because they do not think she has murdered anyone.
Of course, an objection may be made to abortion on moral, religious or other grounds. But invoking the forces of the criminal law to make this argument legally binding on those who disagree is much harder to justify than demanding an end to unpunished murder.
In the case of those who wish to allow untrammeled access to automatic weapons and to prevent effective pre-sale background checks on the suitability of gun purchasers, the bait is the people’s right to resist an oppressive government. Many gun advocates assert that unless weapons capable of killing dozens of people in a very brief period are freely available, Americans will be vulnerable to tyranny. (They have to phrase this carefully, since the explicit reference to “militia” in the text of the Second Amendment served as the Constitutional basis for gun regulation until a conservative Supreme Court overturned long standing precedent.)
As with the anti-abortion movement and murder, this puts forth a justification that is logically unconnected to the policy it purportedly justifies.
If they really believed this, the NRA et al would be seeking to legalize private ownership of the weapons necessary to stop the most powerful military in human history from installing a dictatorship. Does anyone believe in the capacity of an assault rifle to defend against tanks? Automatic pistols against fighter planes? Free arming of perpetrators of domestic violence against helicopter-mounted machine guns? If protecting the right of Americans to duplicate 1776 was a serious goal, they would be trying to repeal the restrictions on possession of modern military weapons.
They know that asking for the right to own shoulder-fired missiles, fighter aircraft, or warships would make them look ridiculous — but it is no less silly to claim that semi-automatic rifles with large magazines will help patriotic resistance fighters defeat the U.S. Air Force.
Finally, the very fact that they implicitly concede that the existing legal ban on possession of warfighting weapons is legitimate eviscerates one of their other main arguments.
Once you adopt legal bans on any weapon, they argue, you have opened the gates to the slippery slope of total prohibition. As is often the case, a variant of Chico Marx’s great question is appropriate: “Who we gonna believe; them or our own eyes?”
Restricting submachine guns in the 30’s did not lead to banning revolvers. Maintaining the prohibition against anti-tank weapons — as we have since they were invented — has not led to outlawing shotguns.
Advocates of unrestricted gun ownership have ironically been successful in using a rhetorical device that should in fact be turned on them. The most relevant question in today’s American reality is not how far associates of reusable gun rules will go in expanding restrictions. It is how far the NRA and their non-bankrupt colleagues would go — if they could — in replacing those bans that have long existed.
Having successfully repealed the assault rifle ban, how deeply down the slope do they wish to slide? Equipping a paramilitary force capable of stalemating the U.S. Marine Corps?
If they disavow the intent to create a shadow Pentagon, I am happy — for two reasons.
First, it will be comforting to know that the Q-Anon Shaman, Marjorie Taylor Green (R-Ga.), and the rest of the wackos will not get access to battlefield weapons. Second, we can then have a legitimate debate on what further sensible firearms regulation we need — based on the merits, free of the accusation that we are dishonoring the memory of the American Revolution.
Barney Frank represented Massachusetts in the U.S. House of Representatives for 16 terms (1981-2013) and was chairman of the House Financial Services Committee from 2007 to 2011.
353898 39163This really is a good common sense article. Really valuable to one who is just obtaining the resouces about this part. It will certainly assist educate me. 970150
556759 359232Now we know who the ssebnile 1 is here. Great post! 784668
51128 621081You produced some decent points there. I looked on the web for that problem and discovered a lot of people is going together with with the internet internet site. 375946
246734 575462Visiting begin a business venture about the internet generally means exposing your products or services moreover provider not only to some individuals inside your town, but yet to lots of future prospects who could be over the internet many times. simple internet business 471670
990013 297340You might uncover two to three new levels inside L . a . Weight loss and any 1 someone is incredibly crucial. Initial stage could be real melting away rrn the body. lose weight 17518
208415 937497Immigration Lawyers […]the time to read or check out the content or websites we have linked to below the[…] 400285
203777 165236Id constantly want to be update on new content on this internet site, bookmarked! 624469
671257 965139Fantastic beat ! I wish to apprentice even though you amend your site, how could i subscribe for a blog website? The account aided me a acceptable deal. I had been slightly bit acquainted of this your broadcast provided bright clear notion 449765
258204 30267Today, while I was at work, my cousin stole my apple ipad and tested to see if it can survive a twenty five foot drop, just so she can be a youtube sensation. My apple ipad is now broken and she has 83 views. I know this is entirely off topic but I had to share it with someone! 917502
636363 991329Sweet web site, super pattern , real clean and utilize genial . 632454
846282 845239Its like you read my mind! You appear to know so a lot about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I believe that you can do with some pics to drive the message home a bit, but rather of that, this really is wonderful blog. A great read. Ill definitely be back. 655426