This is kind of interesting. The bass player for Guns N’ Roses doesn’t much care for guns. I wonder what he thinks about roses. In any case, Duff McKagan recently came out with a surprisingly anti-gun rant, because self-indulgent rock stars, like self-important movie stars, think their opinions matter the most.
McKagan is starting a new series of articles called “Hey! Did Ya See This?” for the Noisey website. In his first installment, he tackles gun control in the most pretentious way possible. He starts out by saying how much more informed about things he is than the rest of us and portrays himself as the moderate voice of reason.
He quickly disqualifies himself as a wise centrist sage by arguing that Obama’s gun control wish list was not only reasonable, but also constitutional. He then says that anyone who opposes Obama’s proposed gun control measures “shouldn’t be a gun owner.” The guy who says he’s a student of history and the Constitution says that if you use your 1st Amendment right to free speech to oppose an unconstitutional act that you should lose your 2nd Amendment right to gun ownership. That’s as liberal as it gets.
And of that right, here’s what McKagan has to say:
Background checks for all gun sales? Hell yes, right? What’s the argument against that?
The argument against that is under the democrats universal background check system, allowing your best friend or even a family member to use your gun becomes a felony. Along with that, the universal background check system comes with a national gun registry that an evil (democratic) administration could use to confiscate firearms. Lastly, the current background check system is pretty pointless considering criminals buy their guns illegally and almost no one is ever prosecuted for trying to cheat the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
Banning AK-47’s and the like? Probably a damn good idea, right? Who needs them?
What part of the 2nd Amendment says anything about having to prove a need? By AK-47s I am assuming he means semi-automatic rifles that liberals refer to as “assault rifles.” A better question would be: what purpose is there to ban an entire class of weapons that are rarely ever used in the commission of a crime?
This all seems as basic to me, as banning sales of guns here for people who are on the no-fly list. Is there something I am missing here?
Yeah, he’s missing the 5th and 14th Amendments which guarantee the people due process. Those on the no-fly list haven’t been accused, arrested, or convicted of any crime. You cannot rob someone of their liberty without formal charges and the opportunity to refute those charges.
Despite his leftist views on gun ownership, McKagan insists:
I’m just a regular guy, neither “pro” nor “anti” gun…and I understand and respect the right to bear arms…
If he wants to facilitate a gun registry, arbitrarily ban an entire class of weapons, and deny people their rights without due process, he is most certainly anti-gun. Looking at it another way, when you use all of the talking points from anti-gun nuts like Hillary Clinton and Moms Demand Action, then you are also an anti-gun nut.
The things McKagan would like to see happen on the gun control front are the actions that despotic rulers take against the citizenry. I’m sure McKagan is fine with being subjugated seeing as he under the rule of tyrant Axl Rose in Guns N’ Roses, but that doesn’t mean it’s good for the rest of us.