I bet if more and more citizens, ane even police, in Miami would carry "assault weapons" , less criminals would feel like using them.
Actualy patrol officers started carrying "assault weapons" in 2007 in Miami. It was news here at the time. The very same officials against private ownership of them were arming the police with ARs. In the very same press releases they would tout the necessity of the ARs for the police and how no private citizens should have such things.
Targeting any specific group for restrictions is always a bad idea. That is where most gun control originated from and spread. It officialy started out as ways to control various violent minority communites, and lead to progressive restrictions on everyone.
It is about control. Anything that can be allowed against any segment of society sets a precedent that allows similar and additional further things to be done to others in the future.
Im not going to jump into the argument of "they are coming now" "no they are not".
I have but one question.The buzz about is them making it permanent.How can you make any law forever?What would stop a future Congress or President from over turning a ban?
There is no doubt that the AWB only ended because it had a sunsent clause, and even with that it was almost renewed as permanent legislation.
It takes a lot more guts for politicians to organize and pass pro gun legislation that really increases freedoms and removes restrictions, while being labeled the cause of everything bad as a result than it does to just kill anti gun bills with a lack of support.
The NFA was permanent, yet it was viewed as unconstitutional by a majority of mainstream judges at the time, and even ruled so in the Miller Case by the lower courts.
Yet after existing for so long has come to be viewed as necessary and normal.
Huge additional restrictions (no over .50, and destructive devices, etc,) prohibited persons, licensing requirements etc became permanent in 1968. At the time it was a big step, now it has come to be viewed as normal to ask the permission of government to excercise a guaranteed right by going through background checks.
In 1986 even complying with the NFA with new registration of select fire weapons by civilians was removed, permanently.
In 1994 the AWB would have been permanent except it barely escaped being automaticly renewed as a mere formality.
Normal is what currently is to people. When some ban on freedom exists long enough it becomes normal, and removing the restrictions that have become normal are then abnormal actions. Actions politicians mindful of careers based more on image than substance are very cautious of.
President Bush said he would renew it if it came to his desk, though he was not very enthuisiastic in support of it. Many Republicans in the House while not willing to come out against a renewal, would not support it if it meant problems with thier base.
It was only because of that lack of support, not a willingness to fight against it that an even worse AWB was not renewed permanently as little more than a formality.
If you can go back in history and cite major gun control measures which have been removed after existing for 10-20+ years I will be impressed. I don't mean some minority that gained full rights, I mean restrictions that applied to citizens in general that were then lifted.
Once it exists for a generation it becomes the new "normal". The AWB was quite close to normal, fortunately it lapsed. Now ownership and freedom of those weapons are viewed as normal by many firearm owners, with ARs one of the most popular semi auto rifles.
That is why some of the antis have switched targets for a short time, targeting the .50 and other calibers.
People may still be vulnerable to that tactic, willing to support restrictions or bans for hyped things they do not own, just like they were "assault weapons" in the early 90s.
:banghead:
