Monday, December 31, 2012

A reinstatement of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban will stop nothing
By: Diane Sori

Following the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, the anti-gun loons have been out in full force trying to get assault weapons (like the Bushmaster AR-15) banned because they erroneously believe this was the weapon 'the monster' used to slaughter the innocents that fateful day just a few short weeks ago.  

It was NOT.

But what all these gun control loons fail to understand is that an assault-weapons ban is NO guarantee that the number of mass shootings would decline. But with a president hell-bent on restricting access to so-called 'mean looking guns' (aka assault rifles) as his jump off point to repealing our Second Amendment with its stated right for 'We the People' to keep and bear arms, we face an uphill but winnable battle.

While nothing changes the fact that most gun crimes in America are committed with handguns NOT assault rifles, there are statistics those on the left won't like, including those compiled by a Northeastern University professor and the Census Bureau that show that the number of mass shootings since the 1980s has fluctuated annually, but with NO major upward or downward trend. In fact, according to FBI data, of the two-thirds of murders that involve firearms, about 69% involve handguns rather than rifles or shotguns of any kind. And estimates from all studies place the contribution of assault weapons to gun crime at around 1 or 2 percent at most.

In other words, banning assault weapons of any sort has absolutely NO bearing on the amount of firearm deaths that occur yearly. And remember, the term 'assault weapon' was invented by the anti-gun lobby as a way of blurring the distinction between modern semi-automatic rifles, which fire once per trigger pull, and selective-fire assault rifles, which can be set to fire continuously, a distinction that Obama just doesn't get. So simply saying laws should be changed to cover more 'assault weapons' is redundant because guns do not become 'assault weapons' until legislators decide to classify them as such. 

"You had that (the Federal Assault Weapons Ban) for 10 years when Dianne Feinstein passed that ban in '94. It was on the books. Columbine occurred right in the middle of it. It didn't make any difference," said NRA chief Wayne LaPierre. "I think that is a phony piece of legislation (referring to a new ban), and I do not believe it will pass for this reason."

I sure hope LaPierre is right, because if passed it would only be the start of Obama's trying to take ALL our guns away and putting them solely in the hands of the very ones we need to defend ourselves from...meaning him and his cronies.

And as this debate continues, who does Obama appoint to head the committee investigating a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban...none other than VP Joe 'Bite-Me' Biden, the very man who helped pass the original along along with Diane Feinstein, the sponsor of this new hoped for ban. 

Remember, in the original ban Congress made a distinction between the broadly defined category of assault 'weapons' and the narrower category of assault 'rifles.' Assault weapons are semi-automatic firearms having certain features similar to those of military firearms.  Assault rifles are a selective fire (either fully automatic or burst-capable) rifle that uses an interchangeable cartridge and a detachable magazine.  The original ban was placed on assault 'weapons' and assault 'weapons' ammunition meaning the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 dealt with a very specific class of firearm and nothing else.

But lets cut to the chase and tell it like it really is...this new proposed assault weapons ban is nothing but an attempt to eliminate ‘straw purchases’ by hiding behind the claim about a gun show loophole that if you buy a gun at a gun show there’s NO background check.  But this is NOT true as all dealers and vendors must run a background check because that’s already law.  What they are trying to say is if two gun show attendees... customers NOT vendors or dealers...bring their own firearms and sell it to another customer with NO paperwork like you would get from a vendor or dealer, that would be a crime, meaning conducting private sales would be a crime.  This would force ALL firearm purchases to be registered allowing the government to know exactly who has a firearm and who doesn’t.  And if confiscation ever became policy they would know exactly who to go for.

However, to get this new hoped for ban passed it still has to go through the Republican controlled House, and such a bill would never make it through if the Republicans stand united against it. And something Obama, Biden, and Feinstein forget is that while a new ban might stop the sale of new semi-automatic rifles, more than three million semis are already in private citizen's hands, so what happens to those...will those people get a knock on the door by the Feds demanding they surrender their rifles...I really don't think the outcome of something like that would be very pretty...for the Feds that is.

So lets end this talk of reinstating any sort of assault weapons ban, and let it really sink in that guns, including assault weapons, don't kill people...people kill people. 

Got it... I surely hope so.


  1. A full-automatic weapon (fires more than one round per trigger pull) is illegal to own. It is referred to as a machine gun under a law dating back to the 1920's
    Having a firearm in possession during the commission of a crime has been a federal crime with an automatic 5 year sentence since the '80's Brandishing a fire arm is a 10 year sentence. That makes it a federal felony.
    Now we need the local authorities to enforce this law every time a crime is committed that involves a firearm. The catch: The local DA has to turn the case over to the Feds. No credit for the local guy! No inventory for the local jail/prison.
    If we decide to make a law about "Gun Control" we need it to be more effective than the DUI laws that are on the books now.

    1. We don't need any laws about gun control. The Second Amendment and our right to bear arms is the only thing that stands between us and 'them.' And if the freakin' liberal lawyers would let criminals be put away we'd all be whole lot better off.