Five Finger Death Punch’s Zoltan Bathory is Also Worried About the Government Taking Away His Guns
According to Noisecreep, Five Finger Death Punch guitarist Zoltan Bathory posted the following message on his Facebook page over the weekend (it seems to have since been taken down):
“Let’s talk about ‘assault’ rifles for a second. Anti-gun advocates in the media placing all the emphasis on the word ‘ASSAULT’ for a reason. It sounds menacing to those who don’t know much about weapons, and this particular word also embodies the concepts of ‘first strike’ and ‘aggression’… and the media just loooves that. The fact IS, however – a rifle is an inanimate object with no free will or intent on its own. It doesn’t plan to assault anyone… So really, this is all just playing with words…. If I called my rifle a ‘defensive rifle’ – it wouldn’t throw up the red flag – and in reality THAT’S WHAT IT IS. I have it for defensive measures so that’s what it should be called. A ‘defensive rifle.’”
Bathory apparently went on to defend the National Rifle Association, encourage other pro-gun supporters to teach others about their “constitutional rights” to own a gun, and slam the “anti-gun” media. Then he concluded with a half-truth about semi-automatic weapons:
“It’s one bullet per one pressing on the trigger. Just like a musket… without you having to pour gunpowder in the barrel and drop a led ball in there – the semi auto gun does it all for you – but ONE at the time…”
So, let’s talk about Zoltan’s assertions, shall we?
First of all, if you’re going to argue that certain guns can’t be referred to as “assault weapons” because “a rifle is an inanimate object with no free will or intent on its own,” then you can’t call it a “defensive rifle,” either, because just as the gun has no intent to assault anyone, it has no intent to defend anyone. The argument actually would have been stronger without the bit about the intentions, or lack thereof, of inanimate objects, because it undermines Zoltan’s own assertion. But if it read like this, for example…
“Let’s talk about ‘assault’ rifles for a second. Anti-gun advocates in the media placing all the emphasis on the word ‘ASSAULT’ for a reason. It sounds menacing to those who don’t know much about weapons, and this particular word also embodies the concepts of ‘first strike’ and ‘aggression’… and the media just loooves that. But really, this is all just playing with words…. If I called my rifle a ‘defensive rifle’ – it wouldn’t throw up the red flag – and in reality THAT’S WHAT IT IS. I have it for defensive measures so that’s what it should be called. A ‘defensive rifle.’”
…he might be making a decent point! Politicians do a have real talent for naming things in such a way as to frame the issue in the manner they see fit (see the whole “inheritance tax” vs. “death tax” debacle).
That being said, calling it a “defensive weapon” would really be just as bullshitty as Zoltan claims the “assault weapon” moniker to be — because it can defend, but it can also assault, depending on the user. Really, the one thing that ALL owners of the gun have in common is this: they intend to kill something or someone, be it as an act of aggression or in self-defense. So, really, if Zoltan is upset about the way the name shows a clear bias for a certain line of political thinking, he should advocate that these guns just be called “weapons which can end lives.” That is a honest and simple statement of fact, devoid of any suggestion of intent.
Moving on: we all need to cut it out with the “IT’S IN THE CONSTITUTION SO IT’S UNFUCKWITHABLE!!!” bullshit. I’m not saying the Constitution is unimportant. It’s very hard to make changes to the Constitution, and with good reason. But it is possible to make changes, and with good reason. The Constitution is the blue print, not the building. The Bible says I can sell my daughter into slavery. I can’t. The Constitution says I can bear arms. They didn’t have the kinds of arms we had when they wrote that. Things change. We need to change with ’em. It’s called “evolution.”
And finally: a semi-automatic weapon is most certainly NOT “just like a musket” just because, like a musket, it can only fire one bullet per squeeze of the trigger. Because depending on the size of the clip, it can actually fire plenty of rounds before it has to be reloaded. And that reloading process takes a fraction of the time that it would take to reload a musket, because, as Zoltan points out, you don’t have to “pour gunpowder in the barrel and drop a led ball in there.” So if, say, some lunatic walked into a school with a musket, he would be able to shoot one person and would then need some time to reload, during which other potential victims would have the opportunity to either flee or attempt to physically subdue the shooter. But if that same lunatic walks into a school with a semi-automatic rifle, he can shoot as many people as there are bullets in his clip, and his reload time likely will not allow anyone a chance for escape or self-defense.
So, to Bathory’s credit, he did not compare gun owners to Gandhi or anything like that. But not to his credit, the holes in argument are bigger than the ones in Ricky Hoover’s earlobes. Bummer, dude.
