KIRO Radio hosts butt heads on issue of gun control
KIRO Radio hosts Don O’Neill and Jason Rantz can’t come to an agreement on gun control or constitutional rights.
After Don wrote a column on guns and their place in society — specifically guns like the AR-15 — Rantz countered with an article of his own. Don argues that such weapons are not meant to be among us and get into the wrong hands. He said we should look at how we, as a nation, think about gun control and rights. Rantz, on the other hand, is wary of gun control. He calls Don’s stance “flawed and dangerous.” He contends that the Constitution is clear and Americans have a right to own guns — period.
That led to a face-to-face debate on gun control, and more, on the Ron and Don Show.
Founding Fathers. A bunch of guys with buckles on their shoes. Not a lot of founding women or mothers. Not a lot of founding African-Americans, Asians or Hispanics. So there’s a lot of white guys with buckles on their shoes with wigs on their heads who sat down to make decisions on how I am going to live my life in 2016. While I can agree to abide by the laws of the land, I don’t have to agree with them … I think we do have to challenge the Constitution. We do have to challenge amendments. We have to admit that women weren’t allowed in that decision. African Americans were not a part of that decision-making process. It’s important every once in a while to go back and take a look and challenge.
I have a lot of guys that wrote and reached out to me and wrapped themselves in the Constitution, and the Second Amendment, and the Founding Fathers. I’m wondering if the Founding Mothers were making decisions, things would have looked differently.
There’s not a clear line you are drawing between what kinds of guns should be banned and why. That’s important when we are talking about constitutional rights. And we can’t react emotionally. That’s the worst time to decide which rights we are going to allow and which rights we aren’t. I don’t think you are providing a reasonable argument.
The spirit of most guns is defense. That generally means killing. I won’t dispute that. To call it a weapon of war or a killing machine, that’s just used to get an emotional reaction … An AR-15 is not a military weapon. And that’s an important distinction to make.
The Second Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, which is not made up of all white men. So I don’t understand that point. You saying there is a flaw in the Second Amendment … you can change it. You can amend the Constitution.
You are not making an argument that makes sense.
Listen to the full debate below.
- Ross: There's nothing unfair about a capital gains tax in Washington
- Seattle schools announce return for students without union agreement, sparking controversy and confusion
- Rantz: Flyer threatens Snohomish sheriff's safety, claims he runs armed 'death squads'
- Sign up to receive the Most Popular email