The author of this American Thinker piece starts off his rant by deftly identifying what it takes to win a war in the court of public opinion - effective propaganda. He also points out that propaganda is not a dirty word, and it doesn’t mean selling untruths. Posters telling people to make their swimming pools safer for young children are not what many people would define as propaganda, but by definition, they are.
So what is our task? Well, like good propaganda we must stay on point and not deviate from the perfect argument. In the case of gun control I do believe this is it.
(Yes, the author acknowledges that we shouldn’t even be having this argument, because the 2nd amendment has settled it. But here we are, fighting. So, please don’t waste time being right, yet losing. The 2nd amendment argument is not effective propaganda. But I agree, that this is-)
“How many bullets might a person reasonably need to stop one or more violent specimens of the most dangerous animal on earth?”
Police departments apparently believe the answer to be 13 to 17 rounds of 9 millimeter, as shown by their use of Glocks with these magazine capacities. A .45 caliber sidearm has far more stopping power, so seven rounds (the maximum now allowed by New York) may be adequate to end a life or death confrontation that somebody else starts. Most women, however, along with small men, find the 9 millimeter’s lesser recoil far easier to handle. New York’s Legislature and governor therefore seem to think that the right of effective self-defense should be reserved for healthy and fit men, as opposed to women and senior citizens.
When it comes to rifles, police departments believe the answer to be no less than 30 rounds of .223, as shown by their deployment of AR-15s. The only difference between a police officer and a private citizen is that the former has the authority and duty to intervene in situations that the ordinary citizen should, or even must, avoid. If either needs a firearm for any non-sporting purpose, though, he or she needs it for exactly the same reason. The definition of a weapon that is “reasonable” for legitimate self-defense is therefore, “Any weapon that is routinely available to law enforcement agencies.”
I tried this on a talk show host who supports the proposed “assault weapon” ban, and he had no viable answer. Neither will anybody else against whom we deploy it in letters to the editor, talk radio, the Internet, and other media.