Most veterans are proud to support the Second Amendment. We served to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That means we support all parts of the Constitution as it stands, which includes the Second Amendment.
However, not all of our fellow veterans feel the same way, apparently.
Reps. Mikie Sherrill and Jason Crow wrote an op-ed for USA Today where they renewed calls for an assault weapon ban.
We are both veterans and parents to young kids. As our children and yours head back to school this fall, here is a lesson we hope none of our kids have to learn: A loaded AR-15 rifle — the military-grade weapon used in more mass shootings than any other — can fire dozens of rounds in a minute.
In El Paso, Texas, families who were back-to-school shopping were attacked by a gunman with an AK-47, capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute. Less than 13 hours later, a gunman in Dayton, Ohio, used an assault rifle with a 100-round magazine to kill nine people in 32 seconds
These despicable acts were possible because domestic terrorists were allowed to buy weapons of war. We condemn this hate in the strongest possible terms and we must cut off this bloodshed at the source.
Both Sherrill and Crow are veterans and should, in theory, know better than that. Now, in Sherrill’s defense, she was a Navy helicopter pilot. Her weapons time was limited at best.
But Crow describes himself as an Army Ranger. He served in combat with the 82nd Airborne. Of all people, he should know damn good and well that the AR-15 isn’t a weapon of war. While infantry soldiers aren’t necessarily firearm experts, even the most cursory understanding of the issue should show that there’s a key difference between the AR-15 and the M-4 he carried in the Middle East.
He should know, he just doesn’t care.
You see, Crow is trying to use his military credentials to argue from authority, to present himself as an expert on the topic so he can spread misinformation on firearms is reprehensible. He’s puffing up his chest, using his military service to justify taking a dump on the Constitution.
Crow and Sherrill continue the misinformation by arguing:
The assault weapons ban is an obvious place to start because it’s a solution that has already worked. Between 1994 and 2004, the U.S. banned the purchase of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and gun massacres where six or more people died dropped 37%. That’s why we are calling on the House to pass the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019, which we are both proud to co-sponsor.
In this case, they’re hoping you focus on one issue–the number of mass shootings in recent history using the AR-15–and ignore the fact that most of the others used handguns which would be immune from this particular bill.
Further, he’s also failing to mention that overall, crime has continued its downward trend since the law sunset in 2004. Instead, he’s focusing on a black swan event. You’re more likely to die from lightning than from a mass shooting, for crying out loud. Regular crime is a much more pressing issue, yet crime has decreased since the ban ended.
He won’t tell you that because he doesn’t want you to know it.
Throughout the entire op-ed, Sherrill and Crow use their military credentials to lend credibility to their screed, all while doing their level best to misinform.
But what else can you expect from anti-gunners?