Call for an explanation
Sheriff Hanlin is winning high praise for his brave stand against government threats to ban semi-automatic assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition clips. Like many others, Hanlin maintains that the Second Amendment has less to do with putting meat on the table than providing citizens the means to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.
However, what Sheriff Hanlin needs to explain is why his bravery ends with mere support for semi-automatic weapons. After all, only an idiot could think that a few patriots could hold off a squad of fully armed Navy Seals or Army Rangers with only semi-automatic weapons. Why then doesn’t Hanlin support legalization of fully automatic weapons? Either Hanlin is a coward for failing to take this extra step, or he has good reasons to support the banning of private ownership of fully automatic weapons.
If he favors the legalization of automatic weapons, then he should say so. If he supports the present ban of automatic weapons, then he should explain why. I would be very interested to know why he thinks it is unconstitutional to ban semi-automatic weapons but perfectly OK for the government to withhold fully automatic weapons from its vulnerable citizens.
So, which is it? Does he think the government has the right to ban certain weapons, or not? He owes the citizens of Douglas County an explanation.