Banning Foreigners Versus Banning Assault Weapons

This is part 20 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for Townhall.com: here, and here.


20. Why are you more comfortable with banning foreigners than banning assault weapons?

Assault weapons are inanimate objects. An assault weapon never hurt anyone all by itself. It takes a human being to use it for violence. And while humans are generally wicked at heart, they use assault rifles in an incredibly small number of crimes. Unfortunately, when they do, the results tend to be horrific. Similarly, many people are afraid to fly because of the horrific impact airline crashes have on us. Yet, people generally have no qualms with getting into a vehicle even though it’s much more dangerous to drive than fly.

Further, people have a Constitutional right to bear arms. It doesn’t matter whether anyone likes it.

The foreigner’s issue is a little tougher. First, let me say that there is no Constitutional right for foreigners to have access to this country. We can let in as many or little as we want.

Second, no one is looking to ban foreigners. We just want to be more selective–and smarter–about who we let in. We want to keep criminals, and terrorists, out. We also want to keep people out that are not going to assimilate to American values. That doesn’t mean abandoning your heritage and family history, but it does mean you have to understand, and accept, that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. They also have the right to Free Speech, even if that speech offends you.

On a separate note, I find the idea that someone thought it was a good idea to lump human beings into the same category as an inanimate object, or tool, a little disturbing. I don’t find it surprising coming from a liberal, but yes, disturbing.

Related Posts:

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.