Texas Congressman Dan Crenshaw must have finally realized that GOP voters want him to fight and beat the left, not discuss “compromises” he would make with it, as he got in a fight with CNN about AR-15s in the wake of the Uvalde shooting and refused to back down from his point about assault rifles and self-defense weapons.
The spat began when Crenshaw appeared Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” program to discuss the rifles and argued that rather than being “weapons of war” or “assault rifles”, which are technically select-fire (fully and semi-automatic) rifles firing an intermediate caliber, they’re really more of a “self-defense weapon”.
Crenshaw made that point after CNN host Dana Bash asked:
“The Second Amendment calls for a well-regulated militia. Do you really think the Founding Fathers, when they wrote well-regulated militia, intended for enough guns, weapons of war, that you are so highly trained in using should be used to massacre children?“
It was a dumb question, as obviously the Founders didn’t want people to murder children. So no, they didn’t think the guns “should be used to massacre children.”
Further, if her whole point is that the weapons are meant for a militia, then why is it a problem that they’re “weapons of war”? Militias are meant to fight wars, so they need such weapons.
Responding to the ridiculous question, Crenshaw first argued over what the 2nd Amendment actually says, arguing that her depiction of it was incorrect because of what the second half of it says. Making that point, he said:
“Well, there’s more to the Second Amendment than what you just read, right? There’s a comma after that. So, there’s two different ideas in the Second Amendment. There’s the individual right to own a gun, and there’s the right of the people to have a well-regulated militia. Let’s talk about the weapons of war thing for a second because you brought that up.”
Continuing, he then proceeded to dispute her characterization of the AR-15, saying:
“So, having been to war and having used many, many weapons of war, I don’t really classify these rifles as weapons of war. We use them, but they’re more a self-defense weapon.
“I would say that if a SEAL team or an infantry team goes on offense, they’re using much, much bigger weapons that are not available to your common civilian. We use our M4s, which is an AR-style weapon, mostly for self-defense and close quarters type of combat.
“And by the way, they have capabilities that your civilian rifles do not. These are still semi-automatic rifles. In the military, we have automatic weapons. I would also say we never use them on full auto because they’re extremely inaccurate that way. So, they’re not useful in that sense. But, in any case, these are not the same.”
An accurate response, though Crenshaw, in not noting the ridiculousness of the premise, didn’t go as far as he probably should have in clapping back.
By: Gen Z Conservative, editor of GenZConservative.com. Follow me on Parler and Gettr.
This story syndicated with permission from Will, Author at Trending Politics
"*" indicates required fields
