Thursday, January 3, 2013

- Federalizing The "Assault Weapons" Ban

There is a piece in the NYTimes today about how to get a new Assault Weapons Ban through congress. In it, the "expert" who contributed the piece incorrectly identifies the features that designate a semi-auto rifle as an "Assault Weapon". He claims a "forward hand grip" is a restricted feature, when it was never addressed by the original bill (and for the record, can be removed from any rifle without the use of tools). How the NYTimes can make that kind of idiotic editorial error should be puzzling, but in this case it really isn't. We already know that guns terrify journalists, so getting the details right is really a secondary consideration.

That's why we're hearing the constant drum beat for more regulation. They don't care that the old Assault Weapons Ban did nothing to reduce crime. They don't care that no one really believes that a new one will do anything either. Reducing crime and violence isn't the goal. Regulating a free citizenry is the goal. Making sure no one can be armed without getting prior permission from the government, that's the inevitable goal.

But in truth, not even the great Barak Obama can shove this one down America's throats at the national level. Regrettably, though, it looks like the gun - banners are taking my advice and approaching this with a federalist bent.

Illinois, a predominantly rural state whose politics are dominated by one of the most corrupt cities in the country, has got it in it's head to get an Assault Weapons Ban of it's own through the state legislature. It may work - it may not. I don't know anything specific about Illinois politics except that like NJ, it's overwhelmed by it's big city. But it's an effort that shouldn't pass.

Until very recently when the courts overturned it as unconstitutional, Chicago had the strictest gun ban in the country. Unsurprisingly, with the lawful citizenry completely disarmed, nothing restrained the criminals and shootings have become a constant thing.

The Assault weapons ban probably won't change that. It's just "feel good" legislation for the "we have to do SOMETHING!" crowd so it won't be likely to affect crime in anyway. But it will be a massive inconvenience to those people who do generally obey the law.

But that's the goal right? All that isn't mandatory is prohibited... unless you get special permission.

4 comments:

ikaika said...

Tom, what is it with liberals and "fairness"?
The goon that wrote this mealy-mouthed op-ed decides to interject fairness into his argument as if a law abiding gun owner is doing something to the disadvantage of the non-gun owning population , or we'll call them "kinetic" gun owners.
Finally, if only because it’s the fair thing to do, let’s require states and localities to process gun registration and other applications by law-abiding gun owners within a reasonable period of time, and with firm deadlines.

What a douche!

Dear Adam - in all fairness, I have excercized my 2a Right in accordance with the strictures set forth by my state legislature and the US Constitution.
Sir, if you wish to surrender you access to 2A, I will not stop you, however if you or the special interest group that you represent plan on restricting the rights of all Americans, I believe you may be stirring quite a few hornet nests.
Molon Labe
Sincerely - ikaika

ikaika said...

Sultan Knish today:

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2012/12/power-to-people.html?showComment=1357215445069#c36302532663321929

excerpts:
Gun control advocates have been digging away at the pesky 2nd Amendment for a while now. Their trouble with it is that guns are loud and make big bangs when they go off and enable the peasants to resist when their betters decide that they should be moved off their land. But the true trouble is that gun ownership is an individual right. And they don't believe in individual rights, their gospel is group rights.

If the 2nd Amendment assigned the right to bear arms to each racial group by degree of persecution, they would find it much more acceptable no matter what the annual death toll was. An LGBT 2nd Amendment would float their boat. An amendment that treats it as an individual right, rather than a group right, does not.




Tom said...

Frankly it's a relief to hear someone other than me say so, I was really beginning to wonder.

The thing is, liberals and the media both want gun control SOOOO BAAAAAD!!!!!!! They want it, want it,want it,want it,want it,want it,want it,want it,want it,want it,want it,WANT IT,WANT IT,WANT IT,WANT IT,WANT IT!!!

They don't care that it won't won't reduce violence. And I'm finding their desire for it is very disconcerting. And nothing that they want so badly can be good for America.

ikaika said...

They will have the Feinstein bill as a means of swinging for the fences.
Gun Registration will be the tipping point.
BHO will have a stage filled with people that he calls "sensible Gun Owners" applauding him as he talks about children and responsibilities.
This is different. This isn't getting a debt ceiling passed or a tax increase.
This will be a whole new attempt at disarming the populace by stripping the teeth out of 2A.
Time to re-up that NRA Membership