Desertdog
Member
One battle has been won (AWB killed) but the war goes on. Dd
New anti assault weapons proposals threaten citizens’ rights
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/index.php?ID=4246
By John Laird
regular columnist
The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) is dead, but copycats extending its restrictions have been in the works for some time now. The ten-year period of the ban has given us time to see it in action and reflect on the utility of that and other overly restrictive anti-gun laws, many of which defy common sense with their skewed logic and general ineffectiveness.
With the arrival of the ban’s expiration, the hype over guns has returned. It provides us with an opportunity to counter the deception of the anti-gun movement and bring a dose of reality to balance the buzzwords used to woo congressmen into joining the Brady Campaign to ban guns at the behest of concerned “soccer moms.†And if you think that there aren’t people whose ultimate goal is banning guns, remember that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) told us back in 1994 that if she “could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate…for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.†I have news for Senator Feinstein: there is, in fact, a Second Amendment; and I believe it takes more than 51 votes in the Senate to repeal it.
Speaking of Senator Feinstein, didn’t she and numerous others allied with the Brady Campaign predict that Uzis and AK-47s would “flood the streets†(her words) if we let the AWB expire on Sept. 13? Well, where are they? The answer, of course, is that they are the same place that they were on Sept. 12. President George H. W. Bush outlawed those two weapons by name, and the production of all such fully automatic guns for civilian use has been illegal anyway since the 1930s. The fact is that the guns “banned†by the AWB function no differently than the ones that remained legal — they only look different. Proponents of the ban called this a “loophole.†There’s no loophole — it was just a dumb law. They should have had the foresight to know that. Indeed, they have the hindsight. The AWB renewal plan that presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry sponsored would reach infinitely further than the first AWB, including banning any rifles that had anything that “can function as a grip†(such as the gun Sen. Kerry received from fans in West Virginia as a gift — though such firearms transactions would also be illegal under Kerry’s law).
Kerry’s new AWB would apparently outlaw the vast majority of rifles. We ought to know by now that banning guns doesn’t work. Take Australia, for example. In the 25 years before Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, the crime rate had been steadily dropping. However, in 2000, armed robberies were up 45 percent, gun homicides in the Australian state of Victoria were up 300 percent and total homicide rates, assault rates and armed attacks on elderly increased in smaller percentages. England has had similar results. The government gave handgun owners a 1998 deadline to turn in their firearms. In the five years following the massive gun turn-in, gun crimes almost doubled overall, and gun homicides increased by 65 percent.
In an effort to establish nation-wide gun registration (the biggest step toward outright confiscation), gun control advocates are also lobbying for more municipal law enforcement agencies to implement “ballistic fingerprinting†programs. The theory is that when any given gun fires a bullet, it makes unique markings on the bullet and casing — just like human fingerprints. Sounds like a great idea, until you realize that unlike human fingerprints, ballistic fingerprints change over time as more bullets are fired through a gun, and a gun user can easily alter the ballistic fingerprint of his firearm simply by filing down a small part of the gun’s firing pin. Besides, how many criminals do you really think are going to bring their guns in to register a ballistic fingerprint? Current ballistic fingerprinting programs have cost taxpayers millions of dollars, and they have yet to solve a crime.
The anti-gun hawks are back in business, and they are threatening your rights. Even if you choose not to exercise your Second Amendment rights, you still ought to be concerned. Guns aren’t the problem. Rather, we need to enforce existing laws that punish gun offenders — there are over 20,000 firearms laws in the United States, too often ignored by ignorant or lenient judges. But don’t punish those of us who are making the country more secure.
New anti assault weapons proposals threaten citizens’ rights
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/index.php?ID=4246
By John Laird
regular columnist
The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) is dead, but copycats extending its restrictions have been in the works for some time now. The ten-year period of the ban has given us time to see it in action and reflect on the utility of that and other overly restrictive anti-gun laws, many of which defy common sense with their skewed logic and general ineffectiveness.
With the arrival of the ban’s expiration, the hype over guns has returned. It provides us with an opportunity to counter the deception of the anti-gun movement and bring a dose of reality to balance the buzzwords used to woo congressmen into joining the Brady Campaign to ban guns at the behest of concerned “soccer moms.†And if you think that there aren’t people whose ultimate goal is banning guns, remember that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) told us back in 1994 that if she “could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate…for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.†I have news for Senator Feinstein: there is, in fact, a Second Amendment; and I believe it takes more than 51 votes in the Senate to repeal it.
Speaking of Senator Feinstein, didn’t she and numerous others allied with the Brady Campaign predict that Uzis and AK-47s would “flood the streets†(her words) if we let the AWB expire on Sept. 13? Well, where are they? The answer, of course, is that they are the same place that they were on Sept. 12. President George H. W. Bush outlawed those two weapons by name, and the production of all such fully automatic guns for civilian use has been illegal anyway since the 1930s. The fact is that the guns “banned†by the AWB function no differently than the ones that remained legal — they only look different. Proponents of the ban called this a “loophole.†There’s no loophole — it was just a dumb law. They should have had the foresight to know that. Indeed, they have the hindsight. The AWB renewal plan that presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry sponsored would reach infinitely further than the first AWB, including banning any rifles that had anything that “can function as a grip†(such as the gun Sen. Kerry received from fans in West Virginia as a gift — though such firearms transactions would also be illegal under Kerry’s law).
Kerry’s new AWB would apparently outlaw the vast majority of rifles. We ought to know by now that banning guns doesn’t work. Take Australia, for example. In the 25 years before Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, the crime rate had been steadily dropping. However, in 2000, armed robberies were up 45 percent, gun homicides in the Australian state of Victoria were up 300 percent and total homicide rates, assault rates and armed attacks on elderly increased in smaller percentages. England has had similar results. The government gave handgun owners a 1998 deadline to turn in their firearms. In the five years following the massive gun turn-in, gun crimes almost doubled overall, and gun homicides increased by 65 percent.
In an effort to establish nation-wide gun registration (the biggest step toward outright confiscation), gun control advocates are also lobbying for more municipal law enforcement agencies to implement “ballistic fingerprinting†programs. The theory is that when any given gun fires a bullet, it makes unique markings on the bullet and casing — just like human fingerprints. Sounds like a great idea, until you realize that unlike human fingerprints, ballistic fingerprints change over time as more bullets are fired through a gun, and a gun user can easily alter the ballistic fingerprint of his firearm simply by filing down a small part of the gun’s firing pin. Besides, how many criminals do you really think are going to bring their guns in to register a ballistic fingerprint? Current ballistic fingerprinting programs have cost taxpayers millions of dollars, and they have yet to solve a crime.
The anti-gun hawks are back in business, and they are threatening your rights. Even if you choose not to exercise your Second Amendment rights, you still ought to be concerned. Guns aren’t the problem. Rather, we need to enforce existing laws that punish gun offenders — there are over 20,000 firearms laws in the United States, too often ignored by ignorant or lenient judges. But don’t punish those of us who are making the country more secure.
