I agree. Being educated is important, but i really dont think the gun debate issue is actually revolving around semi or full auto weapons. Its about guns in general and do we really need people totting them around all the time. Im fine with gun ranges and people owning guns for defense etc, but walking into Applebee's with ANY gun on your person seems a bit extreme to lots of folks. I think that is the real issue. Not semi vs full auto debate. To me that is moving goal posts to avoid the actual topic.
I mean a semi or full auto is going to kill about the same rate of people with a dedicated person, so to me that is kind of a moot point.
I think if were up to me id allow concelled carry/open carry of pistols only. You can still own an AR-15 etc, but its for range or hunting only. Not to carry around town with you while you shop. Or something like that.
Personally i'd agree. And Lemons end goal *might be* the best outcome. But from my experience the real power isn't between you and me, or between us and Lemon, the real power is between many people deciding.
Those decisions when made are most empowered when given the honest and accurate measures of the world around them. In this way, when Don Lemon, or others shift goal posts or bend debate to suite their agenda they are not empowering others, they are empowering themselves or their agenda. I guess it's fine if we agree with them, but again to me, that's not where real power is best consolidated.
Prejudicing a debate can and will achieve goals of the one doing the prejudice, but it strips power away from rather than distributing it to the people.
It works because almost everybody wants to be told what they believe, not the truth. Politicians and commentators looking for ratings are happy to oblige.