From that perspective, perhaps it shouldn’t be a surprise that Freidman would want them outlawed.

After digesting that, Friedman presents us with another howler:

And there is no way that respect for the sanctity of life can mean we are obligated to protect every fertilized egg in a woman’s body, no matter how that egg got fertilized, but we are not obligated to protect every living person from being shot with a concealed automatic weapon.

I would like to issue Mr. Friedman a simple challenge.

Assign the crack research staff at the New York Times to document every recorded incident of a legally owned and concealed automatic weapon used to shoot someone in United States in the past, say, fifty years. It might be easier if they focused on fatalities only.

The simple, unvarnished truth is that every person killed with a legal, concealed automatic weapon in the past fifty years would fit in Friedman’s overstuffed chair, with plenty of room left over for Friedman. There have been none. Not one. You’d be more likely to be struck by lightning while being mauled by a grizzly than encounter Friedman’s absurd fantasy.

Only in Friedman’s warped world are being pro-life and pro-gun rights opposing views. Being pro-life means protecting life inside the womb. Being pro-gun means protecting life outside the womb from criminals and tyrants, the later of which have murdered more than 100 million in the last century alone.

Friedman takes the opposite view, where he is pro infanticide-on-demand, and favors disarming the American people so that criminals and the government share a monopoly of force, assuring tyranny is unopposed. Only someone perversely ignorant of history and human nature –or who is pro-tyranny — could argue for his position.

But that is Friedman, isn’t it? Absurd fantasy, wrapped in unearned elitism, without a basic grasp of facts in fields as diverse as biology, engineering, or law. No wonder he favors the tyranny of small minds.

It’s the best audience for a clown.