Another Assault Weapons Ban? I Think Not

President Obama, his cabinet, and the press continue to demonstrate bad judgment. Here is a news report in which Attorney General Eric Holder stated that the Obama administration will seek a new assault weapons ban. What is more, both Holder and ABC news argued that the assault weapons ban would reduce crime in Mexico.

Now, some of you out there immediately thought, “What’s wrong with that, Political Guru? Guns are baaaaaaaad!” Well, here is my answer: First of all, such a law would be unnecessary, unconstitutional, and ineffective. Secondly, there is no such thing as an assault weapon; it is a canard, a “scare term,” used to invoke fear to overcome the rationality of the populace, end debate, and cause the kind of moral panic that leads frightened voter to permit the government to subtly shave away at their rights. Thirdly, the article reporting this is what the Internet would describe as “full of fail and AIDS.”

The Second Amendment guarantees that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be “infringed,” and a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban would be a massive infringement of this intrinsic right.

Assault weapons…what are they? Well, the term is confusing, because it is used to refer to two different kinds of weapons. There are weapons used by militaries, which are select-fire rifles with fully automatic and/or burst modes and fire what are called rifle cartridges, and then there are what the latest assault weapons ban would ban, and the new potential assault weapons ban classify as “assault weapons.” The former ban banned several features for no reason other than to restrict civilian firearm ownership and chip away at our right to gun ownership. The ban forbade removable magazines of capacities greater than ten rounds and semi-automatic weapons that had such harmless features as pistol grips, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, threaded barrels and barrel shroudsne of those things was famously described as “the shoulder thing that goes up” by Democratic Congresswoman from New York Carolyn McCarthy. The barrel shroud is a safety feature that protects a user’s hands from hot barrels. Pistol grips, bayonet lugs, flash suppressors all have no effect of the lethality of a weapon, or its likelihood of being used in a crime. The real purpose of the old ban was just to restrict the types of guns available. The anti-gun strategy is restrict, restrict, and restrict until there is nothing wrong, and always in the name of public safety, and time their efforts to cash in on the latest highly-publicized murder that involves a firearm, because any effort to ban all civilian ownership all at once would fail. So instead, the gun banners work by degrees, so as to “boil the frog”, and exploit the media outcry that follows any shooting. The last assault weapon did nothing to reduce gun crime or the availability of firearms to criminals, and now, at a time of economic decline, would hurt an industry that employs many Americans and which is supported by many Americans.

The article that inspired this blog also contains all sorts of falsehood and deceit. Holder said that “I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.” However, later in the article the author, Jason Ryan, writes

“Mexican government officials have complained that the availability of sophisticated guns from the United States have emboldened drug traffickers to fight over access routes into the U.S.

A State Department travel warning issued Feb. 20, 2009, reflected government concerns about the violence.

‘Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades,’ the warning said”.

First of all, automatic weapons are already restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act of 1986. The first act requires that firearms capable of automatic fire, grenade launchers, or weapons capable of burst fire be registered, and that all NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, that private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain permission from the ATF, obtain a signature from either the county sheriff or city or town chief of police, pass an extensive background check that includes submitting a photograph and finger prints, fully register the firearm, cannot move such weapons across state lines without ATF permission, and pay a tax. This request to transfer ownership of an NFA item is made on an ATF Form 4. The latter Act contains an amendment that bans civilian ownership of all such firearms: clearly, automatic weapons, especially grenades and grenade launchers (they’re not generally available at your average gun store). So, as the last assault weapon ban didn’t cover those kind of weapons, what would renewing it do? Furthermore, it shows that most of the automatic the weapons that the Mexican criminals are using are not of U.S. origin, unless they are obtaining them from U.S. military, police, or the U.S-based manufacturers of military weapons. If that is the case, then it’s a simple matter of enforcing laws already on the books regarding the sale and transfer of automatic weapons, and, again, such weapons were not covered by the last AWB.

Holder further demonstrated his poor judgment by saying that he planned on “…closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent.” “Cop-killer” bullets? What are “cop-killer” bullets? Any bullet can kill a cop, so does that mean that all bullets have to be banned? That might be what Holder intends. Obama had clear knowledge of Holder’s outrageous aims, as Holder has said, “It’s something, as I said, that the president talked about during the campaign.”

Clearly, Obama’s insistence that he wasn’t a danger to the right to bear arms during his campaign was yet another broken campaign promise, and his appointment of Holder to Attorney General another poor cabinet choice. Hopefully, the new assault weapons ban will fail to pass, or will be overturned by Supreme Court under the precedent established under last summer’s Washington, D.C. v. Heller, under which the NRA is already planning to challenge the new act, should it pass. Your Political Guru sincerely hopes that such won’t be necessary.

4 Responses to “Another Assault Weapons Ban? I Think Not”

1. Evan says:

   March 10, 2009 at 1:30 pm

   So-called “Cop-Killer” bullets are armor piercing rounds, and hollow-pointed highly lethal bullets. Last I checked, kevlar was not standard issue for most hunted animals, or for the neighborhood crack/meth addict that might break in to your house, nor have either figured out how to survive a normal bullet, when on target. Flash-suppressors are intended to prevent the location of a shooter from being determined by looking for the muzzle flash, and I sincerely doubt that deer or ducks have evolved to hide from flashes – besides, who hunts at night? Bottom line, is that these Assault Weapons restrictions are intended to remove weapons designed for combat, i.e. killing people, from the same class as those used for sport: hunting and target practice. If you want these guns to go hunting with, then you are the type of person that would go fishing with dynamite, and are an idiot. If you don’t want to hunt with them, then you want to shoot people with them, and you are a dangerous idiot. ‘Guru’, huh? “…bayonet lugs…have no effect of [sic] the lethality of the weapon” what are you gonna do, attach your beef jerky to the end of your gun? Maybe roast s’mores with your (suppressed) muzzle flash? Or would you argue that a bayonet attached to the lug has no effect? Look, if you want to play with all the coolest new people-killing machines, join the army (or SWAT team) and not only will they provide them to you, but teach you how to use them. If you want to be a sportsman (or sportswomen) there is nothing ’sporting’ about assault weapons (no matter how neat the technology is). In your piece, I see no argument against banning these weapons aside from a feeble attempt at arguing semantics, which I guess would put it right up the so-called political guru’s alley. Just don’t let me see you following up this article with one on the ‘right to life’ argument. You can not have your cake and eat it too.
2. Political Guru says:

   March 10, 2009 at 7:04 pm

   To answer your comment, Evan, the Second Amendment is not intended to preserve the “right to keep and bear arms” for hunting purposes alone. True, hunting provided a larger portion of our nation’s meat consumption, and was more out of necessity than for game management or sporting purposes when the Bill of Rights was written, but that is beside the point. The Second Amendment is to give the citizenry A) the ability to protect itself from criminals, and B) the ability to overthrow the government should it become corrupt. Read the founding fathers’ writings and you’ll see that many believed that such was essential for the preservation of liberty and the prevention of tyranny. If the government was in constant fear of being overthrown if it pissed off the electorate, then our politicians would have a less condescending attitude towards the electorate, and genuinely work for the service of the common good, rather than try to deceive John Q. Public into electing them so they can continue to rule over him.

   In my own humble opinion, Mr./Ms./Mrs. Evan, any weapon that is available to the Armed Forces should be available to any citizen who is of legal age, sane, and has a clean criminal record. Anything less is an infringement of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Second Amendment.

   And, finally, the anti-gun lobby doesn’t care about sportsmen or hunters. They want all civilian firearms banned, no exceptions. Since they can’t pull that off all at once, they work by degrees, manipulate public hysteria over gun-related deaths, and exaggerate and outright lie. Before Prohibition, people thought “Oh, they won’t ban my beer or my wine! Just that evil hard liquor (assault alcohol?)!” But no! With the small exception of wine for Christian religious services, alcohol was banned, which lead only to a rise in organized crime and increased alcohol consumption. So, unless you’re being deceitful and are one of those who wish to ban all guns, don’t try to sell me on that “I just want to ban the ‘people-killing machines’!” line. Guns kill, and a gun that kills well is a machine that does its job well. And, as long as our government and the crooks have access to such machines, so too should law-abiding citizens.
3. Bill says:

   April 29, 2009 at 12:06 pm

   Evan, Evan, Evan. My, my – where to begin. Impressive how you can be so wrong and off-base, all in one post. My sympathies for your embarrassment – your ignorance is showing.

   Let’s see – you say “Cop-Killer” bullets are armor piercing rounds, and hollow-pointed highly lethal bullets.” First, not all hollow-point rounds will penetrate standard-issue body armor. In fact, I’d go so far as to say it’s likely that most HPs won’t. And you don’t need an armor-piercing round to go through body armor. Any decent centerfire hunting rifle round will do it. The point is – ANY bullet can kill a cop, just like it can kill anyone else. Just do a little research for stories in which a cop was killed by a bullet going under his arm (bypassing the vest) or in the head. You don’t need a “cop-killer” bullet to do that. These type of bans are just a form of creeping incrementalism – desenstizing the public to the notion of increased government control of what you can and cannot buy.

   You then say: “Flash-suppressors are intended to prevent the location of a shooter from being determined by looking for the muzzle flash.”

   Woopsie! Wrong. You’ve been drinking the Brady Campaign Kool-Aid, haven’t you. Flash suppressors are designed to reduce the visibility of the muzzle flash to the SHOOTER to prevent the shooter from being blinded by the bright incandescent flash. A flash suppressor does not reduce the visibility of the flash to anyone down-range of the weapon, including the would-be target of the shooter.

   “Bottom line, is that these Assault Weapons restrictions are intended to remove weapons designed for combat, i.e. killing people, from the same class as those used for sport: hunting and target practice. If you want these guns to go hunting with, then you are the type of person that would go fishing with dynamite, and are an idiot.”

   ANY gun can be used to kill people. And in fact, lots of people go hunting with “sporterized” versions of your so-called “assault weapons.”

   “If you don’t want to hunt with them, then you want to shoot people with them, and you are a dangerous idiot.”

   Hmm… seems to be a dangerous idiot calling someone a dangerous idiot. I happen to own several firearms, none of which I hunt with; yet I do not own them to go shooting people with. Once again, your “reasoning” is highly flawed.

   “bayonet lugs…have no effect on the lethality of the weapon” what are you gonna do, attach your beef jerky to the end of your gun?”

   No, but neither am I going to attach a bayonet to the end of the gun. When was the last time you heard of a mass bayoneting, or a drive-by, gang-related bayoneting? Gee, I thought the rationale for banning these so-called “extremely dangerous” firearms was because they were so easy to use in mass killings and wiping out entire schools. How does a bayonet lug do that? And when has anyone used a bayonet lug for such a purpose?

   “If you want to be a sportsman (or sportswomen) there is nothing ’sporting’ about assault weapons (no matter how neat the technology is).”

   See, now you’re off on that misguided assumption that the right to firearms is based solely on hunting. Which, by the way, is uh, wrong. And if you’re in favor of people having only hunting rifles, well guess what – plenty of hunting rifles are FAR more powerful and accurate at greater distances than the middling firearms “banned” by the AWB.
4. Dan says:

   June 28, 2009 at 3:54 am

   Thanks Bill, you covered every ounce of “stupid” I was preparing to beat out of Evan. Saved me some trouble!

   God Bless The United States of America.