The delightfully named executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, one Leah Gunn Barrett,* takes to the pages of today’s New York Times to display her ignorance of firearms, government and law, not necessarily in that order.
Ms. Gunn Barrett** clearly derives onanistic pleasure from her self-satisfying regurgitation of demonstrable falsehoods, all in service of the great liberal god(dess) of gun banning.
Here are a few of ‘Puter’s favorite rhetorical ejaculations:
“A Deadline for Grandfathered Weapons” (editorial April 15) is right in saying that registering assault weapons in New York under the SAFE Act is no big deal. After all, owners of assault weapons before the law’s passage can keep them as long as they register them.
Ah, yes. The old “the Second Amendment’s no big deal” argument liberals know and love. Let’s try this, gun-banning true believers. See if you can get behind the same sentiment in this slightly rewritten paragraph.***
“A Deadline for Abortion Recipients” (editorial April 15) is right in saying that registering before receiving an abortion in New York under the SAFE Act is no big deal. After all, women who could receive abortions before the law’s passage can still receive abortions as long as they register.
“But ‘Puter, that’s not the same thing at all, you wymyn hating misogynist!”, scream the shrill, humorless sisterhood of hirsute feministing rape culture pre-vyctyms. You’re right, Sister Chia Pet Leg Foliage.**** It’s not the same thing at all.
The pesky Second Amendment is actually in the Constitution (in the Bill of Rights, no less), with no need to go searching the penumbras for emanations like abortion supporters must. It is logically inconsistent and legally incoherent to believe abortion restrictions are subject to a more stringent standard than firearm restrictions.
But wait, there’s more! Ms. Gunn Barrett gunsplains to us ignorant firearm owners why restricting “military-style assault weapons” is so very, very important.
The ban on military-style assault weapons is an important part of the law. Experts, like those in law enforcement who understand firearms, tell us that each of the features on an assault weapon serves a specific military combat function. Civilian assault weapons retain the specific design features that make them so deadly.
“See, stupid ‘Puter! You don’t even know that specific design features make scary guns even more deadly!”, say the millions of New Yorkers backing the SAFE Act who have never seen, much less handled, a firearm.
Again, ‘Puter must confess the iron clad, unassailable logic of Ms. Gunn Barrett’s argument. It is indisputable that the only people capable of opining on the characteristics of firearms are “[e]xperts, like those in law enforcement who understand firearms.”
There are no known circumstances where any member of law enforcement has used a weapon in an unsafe manner. Certainly not in New York City, and certainly not within the last two days.
But wait a minute, Ms. Gunn Barrett. What about the specific military design features that make “[civilian assault weapons” so deadly? Tell us more, please. We’re all ears.
Those features are not cosmetic but are what distinguish assault weapons from traditional sporting rifles. Such weapons of war have no place in our communities.
Of course! How could ‘Puter have been so stupid! Just look at this list of features banned by New York’s misnamed SAFE Act, each of which is a tragedy waiting to happen! Governor Cuomo has sensibly banned possession of any semiautomatic rifle capable of receiving a detachable magazine if the rifle also has any one of the following features: folding or telescoping stock; protruding pistol grip; thumbhole stock; second handgrip; bayonet mount; flash suppressor, muzzle brake; muzzle compensator; threaded barrel; and grenade launchers.*****
Glory Moses, thank you Ms. Gunn Barrett! ‘Puter was mightly afeared of a gun with a detachable magazine, like nearly every single pistol in current production. And goodness knows the damage that could be wrought without a ban on folding stocks and pistol grips! Why, ‘Puter might get pinched when a wrongdoer attacks by attempting to crush ‘Puter between the stock’s foldy parts! ‘Puter positively feels faint when he sees a pistol grip or second handgrip, because ‘Puter knows in his heart of hearts that scary looking cosmetic characteristics are better indicators of potential damage than a firearm’s rate of fire and magazine capacity, not to mention the skill of the firearm’s operator.
Flash suppressors are not useful for any legitimate purpose, like coyote hunting in season at night so as not to be blinded by muzzle flash. And there’s no way anyone like an amateur competitive shooter would ever want a threaded barrel to accommodate a muzzle brake or muzzle compensator to increase her accuracy in shooting competitions.
And if you’re truly worried about stabbings, rifle mounted bayonets are the least likely method of inflicting stab wounds ‘Puter could think of. Reforming New York’s lax knife laws would be a better use of your time. And grenade launchers? Really? Let’s assume ‘Puter’s very bad scary shooting thing has a grenade launcher. It’s already illegal for ‘Puter to possess grenades, so where’s the need?
Ms. Gunn Barrett has an answer to ‘Puter’s question. Without oppressive and borderline if not outright unconstitutional firearms regulations, New Yorkers would slaughter each other on a scale unseen since the Civil War.
The SAFE Act, through measures like universal background checks on gun and ammunition sales, a stronger ban on assault weapons and tougher penalties for illegal gun use, will protect communities across the state. Our strong gun safety laws are the reason New York has the fourth lowest gun death rate in the country.
Ms. Gunn Barrett like all good liberals believes only government can protect us from each other. ‘Puter, like all rational humans, worries less about his neighbors owning firearms than about a government that disarms him in the name of protecting him.
Liberals who are unbothered by government infringement of their neighbors’ constitutional rights should not be surprised when the tables are turned and they find their favored rights infringed. Don’t come crying to ‘Puter then, liberals, because he won’t be able to help you.
You see, you’ve disarmed him.
* Come on. That’s good stuff. A gun banning New York City harpy named both “Gunn” and “Barrett?” You can’t make that stuff up.
** Or is it simply Ms. Barrett? Or Ms. Gunn? ‘Puter never knows with these hairy-legged, anti-choice, bigoted city dwellers. Take your husband’s name, keep your own name, ‘Puter doesn’t care. But in the name of sanity, pick one name. What’s going to happen when your only child Wilberforce Gunn Barrett marries Lesbiana Barrett Browning? Are the wedding announcements going to read “Join us in a zero carbon footprint, Gaia-centered joining ceremony for the future Barrett Browning Gunn Barrett ( or is it the Gunn Barrett Barrett Brownings)”? Damned liberals, ruining everything for everyone in the name of a misguided sense of equality or some other leftist horse crap.
*** This is also known as the ‘Puter Postulate. Simply put, an anti-gun argument advanced by liberals will be immediately disclaimed if the word “abortion” is substituted for “gun,” “assault rifle,” “scary black bang stick” or “ERMAGERD! THET GUN SKEERED MEE SEW BAD AH CRAPPED MAH PASHMINI UNDIEEZ!!1!” as circumstances require.
**** Don’t blame ‘Puter. That’s the name this young wymyn took in honor of the great groundbreaking Native American feminist Sen. Pocahontas Warren (Du-MbAss). Keep your shames off our names, oppressor!
***** ‘Puter actually owns a “weapon of war,” an operable and used in battle Japanese Arisaka Type 99 rifle (chambered in 7.7mm Jap, for those who care), complete with crazy anti-aircraft sights (really) and a bayonet lug. This rifle is not affected by Governor Cuomo’s poorly conceived SAFE Act.