No, Terry Quinn, semi-automatic rifles do not have legitimate civilian uses

No, Terry Quinn, semi-automatic rifles do not have legitimate civilian uses

I recently read an article in Colorado's Vail Daily entitled, "Semi-automatic rifles have legitimate uses."  You can read it yourself by clicking HERE.

The article, written by Terry Quinn  is a collection of worn out, specious and disingenuous arguments.

Mr. Quinn's remarks are sound bytes from the NRA playbook.

The nomenclature is irrelevant. Whether you call them assault rifles, AR-15s or SARs, it's all the same. No gun that can fire a high powered bullet like the .223/556 NATO with every squeeze of the trigger belongs in the hands of any civilian.

Semi-automatic rifles are weapons of war designed to do one thing. When used as intended, they destroy human bodies with great efficiency.

I learned to respect the M-16 (automatic) rifle at Fort Polk, Louisiana in 1969. I understand the importance of the weapon and its destructive capability.

Armalite designed the AR-15 as a civilian version of the M-16. Current versions of the AR-15 are more reliable and more deadly than their predecessor.

Mr. Quinn talks about Rodney King and barred windows in urban settings. He lives in Eagle, Colorado. Who does he expect to come through his front door, Mikaela Shiffrin?

Quinn talks about the popularity of pit bulls, which is actually at its lowest level since 2010.  Pit bulls are bred for illegal dog fighting and many wind up in shelters and euthanized.

Whatever the case for pit bulls, you can't use one in a church or theater or school to murder a dozen innocent people.

Mr. Quinn compares the 1st and 2nd Amendments as if they were of equal value to democracy. They are not.

Freedom of expression, protected in the 1st Amendment has not changed since the conception of the Bill of Rights. There are certainly more ways to express yourself now than there were in 1776, but the idea of one being able to express oneself hasn't changed.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the rightest of the Right disagreed with the 2010 decision that the the 2nd Amendment applied to individuals. In any case, no one disagrees that the 2nd Amendment is subject to limitation.

The Supreme Court has refused to hear any challenges to local municipalities banning semi-automatic rifles

Not being part of "A well regulated militia" probably disqualifies just about everyone from owning a weapon. That being said, there's probably no home defense scenario that needs more firepower than a good old 9 millimeter hand gun.

Most home defense experts agree that the best weapon for home defense is a shotgun with an 18-1/2 barrel.

The longer we normalize the civilian possession of SARs, the more shootings we're going to see like the ones in Newtown, CT (2012), Las Vegas, NV (2017) and Parkland, FL (2018).

I'm sorry Terry Quinn, but your arguments don't hold water. They're simply sales pitches used by the NRA to promote and protect lucrative gun sales.

I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon in Illinois and I enjoy the challenge of target practice with a semi-automatic rifle.

I also enjoy driving really fast down side streets at night, but it's illegal and dangerous. At some point, we all have to say, "Enough is enough."

How important is anyone's AR-15 that he (or she) wouldn't give it up if the possibility exists that just one massacre could be prevented?

To read Guns, Violence and Advertising in the Age of Trumpism, Hate and Fear, click HERE

Subscribe to the Chicago Board of Tirade
* You will never get SPAM
* Your email address will never be sold or given away
* You will only receive emails on days I post.
* You can unsubscribe at any time
* You can contact me anytime at: RJ@bobabrams.net

* Just type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button.

Leave a comment