NRA News; Billy Johnson: You Say Want, I Say Need

| February 3, 2014

The folks at NRA News send us their latest commentary from Billy Johnson who takes apart the argument that government can restrict our right to own the weapons of our choice without a clear reason;

We are being asked to agree to legislation that restricts our Constitutionally protected rights. The burden of proving need doesn’t fall on us; it falls on the government to justify that restriction. Historically, Americans have enacted legislation that restricts their rights because of the perception it will make them safer or more secure. Now I’m not saying I think that’s okay, but if we use history as our guide, the data has to support the assertion that restricting this right in this way will make us significantly safer.

According to the recently released 2012 FBI crime stats, last year there were 12,765 murders. Of those, 322 used a rifle. The data doesn’t differentiate between semi-automatic and bolt action rifles. Still, rifles were used in only 2.5 percent of all murders last year. We are being asked to restrict access to semi-automatic rifles in order to prevent their use in less than 2.5 percent of all murders. That’s irrational and is a result of the media and our politicians engaging in inflammatory rhetoric that is meant to instill an overinflated fear of semi-automatic rifles in Americans. Restricting our access to semi-automatic rifles will not make a statistically significant impact on our safety and security.

Category: Guns

9 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
OL YEOMAN CPO

Ya, those pesky 1st,4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 13th, 15th amendments just get in the way. Oh hell, lets just get rid of all of them. They just get in the way of a good time.

FatCircles0311

Libtards and facts? Antithetical to their being. Emotional reasoning for everything or bust!

SFC D

Facts? We don’t need no stinkin’ facts

vietnam war protestor a.k.a. u.s.s. liberty

Here is the clear reason! SANDY HOOK SCHOOL, NEWTOWN CONN. 20 dead children 6 dead teachers giving up their lives to protect the children. How would you tell these children’s parents that their deaths are a small price to pay so you can run around with an assault gun ?

Thunderstixx

#4… For crying out loud… The puke that did those murders of those kids you scream about was a died in the wool liberal, just like you…
It would be better to stop liberals from owning guns. All of the recent mass murders were done by liberals. If you payed attention you would also know that had one of those 6 teachers had a firearm there might not have been any deaths of those kids.
All mass murders are committed in gun free zones because the killers know that nobody there can fight back. Where there was an armed cop in the school the killing only went on for 88 seconds before the puke blew his own head off. He was equipped to kill a lot of kids but because that cop was there, he decided to take his own life instead of letting a cop take it for him. He did kill one young girl but again, the killer was a staunch liberal….
So, get your facts straight and get off the board with your crap since you only want to scream lies…

Roger in Republic

I would bet that a large number of those rifle kills were made by SKS/AK’s in the hands of prohibited persons. A goodly number were .22 cal plinking rifles and I’m sure a few hunting rifles came into play. It may well be that the AR’s were only used in the three or four mass type shootings that come to mind.

Oh, and to Viet protester; Any gun used to assault a person is an “assault gun”. The AR platform rifle is a semi automatic sporting arm. It does not assault anyone. A criminal commits assault, he may use a rifle or a brick, or his bare hands but the tool is innocent.

rb325th

Another thing about the FBI gun statistics, is that all non accidental shootings are considered homicides for reporting by the FBI. That means all justifiable shootings by police and civillians against persons comitting crimes are also counted in that number. That is for all categories of guns… so of that 2.5% how many are justifiable shootings? No idea as there is no breakdown in the numbers.

Ex-PH2

The bogeyman argument hasn’t worked with me since I was 5.

OWB

It would make a great deal more sense (and it could absolutely be justified with statistics and simple logic) that libbies should be disarmed than any of the rest of us who have never used a weapon of any sort to commit a crime. Most of us have never committed a crime, with or without a weapon.

The problem is that libbies have the same Constitutional protections as the rest of us. In other words, they get to whine irrationally about gun ownership while they hypocritically own guns and hire body guards for their own protection.