No one wants to take away your guns. Once more, with feeling -- no one wants to take away your guns. And by the way, did I mention that no one wants to take your guns? Except yeah, they do, again. And yet again while claiming they don't.
Latest media figure to let this cat out of the bag was National Public Radio reporter Mara Liasson, appearing with three of her colleagues on the NPR Politics podcast Feb. 22.
Much of their discussion focused on the horrific school shooting in Parkland, Fla., and its political reverberations when Liasson said this --
LIASSON: Because things are so tribal now, we can't have the argument that we used to have which is, nobody is taking away anyone's guns, we just want to make it illegal -- just like we already make it illegal to have a machine gun! -- we think there are other guns that are like machine guns that should also be banned -- and were! -- for 10 years from 1994 to 2004. But because we're so tribal it's black and white. Any gun restrictions at all means you're coming after my tribe.
For those unfamiliar with NPRspeak, allow me to translate -- "we're so tribal" means "gun nuts bitterly clinging to their firearms and refusing to budge." Notice how the tribalism she bemoans cuts a certain way, instead of, to cite an obvious example, an irrational belief in the magical properties of gun-free zones to ward off predators.
Liasson's amusing flip-flop is a textbook example of why conservatives don't trust liberals when it comes to guns (not that they should be trusted much otherwise). Usually the earnest denial of any intention to ever, ever deprive law-abiding citizens of their constitutional right to a firearm is followed by a delay of at least a few minutes before said liberal making the claim then, for example, waxes rhapsodic about Australia confiscating guns after a mass shooting in 1996. Followed by the sigh ... if only that could happen here ...
In Liasson's case, she had barely gotten out the words -- "nobody is taking away anyone's guns" -- before then suggesting that's what needed is a reinstated assault weapons ban. But "ban" is one of those words open to interpretation. Does it mean a ban on future sales -- or also current ownership? Would that ban include the AR-15, the gun used in the Parkland school shooting -- and also one of the most widely owned rifles in America? Would police go door to door seizing banned guns? Would gun owners be compensated for their seized property? Will more prisons be needed to incarcerate those unwilling to surrender banned guns that liberals now say they have no intention of banning?
Not only does Liasson come across sounding like John Kerry on Iraq, she parrots the bogus claim of adamant opposition by gun owners to "any gun restrictions at all." Which is actually more NPRspeak, translated as, "opposition to all gun restrictions ... that I support."
