Read On: Shooting holes in assault-weapon dogma

There’s a joke going around Twitter that goes something like this:

Man: “I’ll take 2 boxes of Sudafed.”

Clerk: “Sorry, by law you can only buy one at a time.”

Man: “OK then, just the one box of Sudafed and these seven guns.”

Yes, it’s true. It’s easier to buy enough firepower to blow away a small army than it is to purchase decongestant. Welcome to the America of 2016, where Democratic senators are forced to hold a dramatic, marathon filibuster on the Senate floor to raise the possibility of new gun-control measures following the horror that went down last Sunday in Orlando.

MORE: Read previous columns from Ray Richmond >>

Do you know the primary issue those senators were stumping for? It was to prevent individuals who have appeared on the government’s terrorism watch list from being permitted to purchase guns. That’s it! And this was a bill that Republicans opposed in blocking the legislation last December — and evidently still do.

Let me say it again: Republicans defend the right of people on the terrorism watch list to buy guns. Allow that to sink in for a moment.

How outrageous is this? So outrageous that even Donald Trump opposes it. It doesn’t get much nuttier than that.

Well, wait, actually it might.

I have yet to hear an argument against banning assault weapons — the semi-automatic kind used by killer Omar Mateen in murdering 49 and injuring more than 50 at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando — that makes even a shred of sense.

I spent much of last Sunday quarreling over social media with assault rifle proponents who believe it is their God-given Second Amendment right to cart around military-style weaponry capable of firing more than 60 bullets a minute, along with the magazine to pull it off.

Their point is that if ever there comes a time when we all have to take on our own government, conventional handguns simply won’t do the trick.

Mind you, I have never once worried about this particular thing happening in the United States of America. I’ve honestly got enough on my plate without adding “Plan for Tyranny” to my to-do list.

But OK, I’ll give these folks the benefit of the doubt that this is something that genuinely consumes their thoughts. Few in my liberal circle feel similarly, of course. Yet I figure there must be a middle ground someplace among responsible gun owners who don’t subscribe to the National Rifle Assn.-driven assault firearms madness.

I found it with my friend Matthew Clayton, a very cool young dude, a very bright and thoughtful husband and father as well as a proud U.S. Navy veteran. He posted something Friday on Facebook that, while simple, perfectly summed things up.

“Let’s talk gun control,” his post began. “The argument goes that in the event we were ever going to rise up against our government, we need our assault rifles to do it.”

I thought, “Oh boy, here we go with another justification of insanity.” But I couldn’t have been more wrong.

“Fact of the matter is, we’d need a whole lot more than assault rifles,” Matthew’s post continued. “The government has Predator Drones, aircraft carriers, stealth bombers, A-10 Warthogs, M1 tanks, and the largest electronic surveillance network in the world (which is very practiced at targeting its own population) that could easily track down the leaders and supporters of the anti-government movement.”

Yes. Exactly. You think your puny AR-15 or AK-47 is going to keep the feds from seizing your home in the midst of anarchy? Good luck with that, pal.

Matthew went on, “If this is your argument for why we need assault rifles, you should really be expressing your right to have anti-aircraft missile systems, rocket launchers, and your very own F-22’s in your backyard, because that’s really what it would take in this very paranoid scenario.”

In other words, assault-weapons wackos, put your money where your explosives are and go all the way. Why stop at the AR-15 when you can procure an entire arsenal of death? But if you do, Matthew cautions, “Every day the news would be filled with stories of how some crazy guy blew up his neighbor’s house because the dog pooped on his lawn.”

And while we’re at it, Matthew wrote, let’s remember that the same founding fathers who swore by the Second Amendment “also put into our Constitution that it was legal to own black people.” Ergo, not all of the ideas they had 240 years ago were perfect as written. Some had to evolve. Just like human beings themselves are expected to.

Matthew concluded, “I am a gun owner. We need handguns, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles to protect ourselves from criminals. What we don’t need is an AR-15.”

Congress, are you listening? Common sense has the floor.

--

RAY RICHMOND has covered Hollywood and the entertainment business since 1984. He can be reached via email at ray@rayrichco.com and Twitter at @MeGoodWriter.