MicroBalrog
member
Neal Knox Report
M.G. "Freeze" Must Be Overturned
By Neal Knox
WASHINGTON, D.C. (July 15) -- When the U.S. House passed a
prohibition upon future sales of newly manufactured machine guns
to private citizens, and the Senate and President accepted it,
that law became the first-ever national ban upon personal
firearms.
It must not be allowed to stay on the books.
That law obliterates whatever is left of the Second
Amendment, and it makes a mockery of the presumption that a law
must address a social ill.
What was the law supposed to accomplish? Not reduction of
crime, for there was no crime with licensed machine guns to be
reduced.
Though murders and robberies are sometimes committed
with machine guns, they aren't the legal machine guns affected by
the new law.
As the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
acknowledges, street crimes with licensed guns simply never
happen. Such crimes aren't committed by people who go through
the incredibly difficult and expensive machine gun licensing
procedure. As is so often said, "Gun laws are obeyed only by the
law-abiding."
I've never even heard of a [stolen] licensed machine gun being
used in a crime (though there have been many cases of bank
robberies and other crimes committed with machine guns stolen
from National Guard armories and other military installations).
[The law's only purpose was to satisfy the visceral
urges of Congressmen to ban something they don't like.]
Satisfy is too strong a word, for that implies that now
they'll quit trying to ban firearms. They won't. [The freeze on
new machine guns, and the ease with which it passed, merely whetted
their appetite.]
Recently I received a letter from a Californian who says
he's been been an NRA member for 15 years, and who accused me of
aiding the anti-gun cause by defending private ownership of
machine guns.
Maybe so.
Machine guns aren't popular with either the press or the
general public. Neither are semi-autos that look like military
machine guns. Neither are short-barreled handguns.
But I would have a hard time defining what kind of firearm
is acceptable to the national news media. Certainly not any kind of
handgun. And not high-powered rifles with scopes on them. And
not "automatic" shotguns.
What our California friend doesn't care to face is that if
the Second Amendment doesn't address his right to own a machine
gun, then neither does it address his right to own a handgun --
nor a rifle or shotgun.
And if the lawmakers can ban legal guns that are never used
in crime, then the fact that no gun law reduces the crime rate
is irrelevant.
Unfortunately, that California NRA member isn't alone. Just when
will they be willing to fight?
Only when the proposed law threatens the guns in their
hands?
Only when it's too late?
(FOR INFORMATION ON THE FIREARMS COALITION AND A COPY
OF THE LATEST "HARD CORPS REPORT," WRITE BOX 6537, SILVER SPRING,
MD 20906. Computers can call the Bullet'N Board, 703-971-4491)
M.G. "Freeze" Must Be Overturned
By Neal Knox
WASHINGTON, D.C. (July 15) -- When the U.S. House passed a
prohibition upon future sales of newly manufactured machine guns
to private citizens, and the Senate and President accepted it,
that law became the first-ever national ban upon personal
firearms.
It must not be allowed to stay on the books.
That law obliterates whatever is left of the Second
Amendment, and it makes a mockery of the presumption that a law
must address a social ill.
What was the law supposed to accomplish? Not reduction of
crime, for there was no crime with licensed machine guns to be
reduced.
Though murders and robberies are sometimes committed
with machine guns, they aren't the legal machine guns affected by
the new law.
As the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
acknowledges, street crimes with licensed guns simply never
happen. Such crimes aren't committed by people who go through
the incredibly difficult and expensive machine gun licensing
procedure. As is so often said, "Gun laws are obeyed only by the
law-abiding."
I've never even heard of a [stolen] licensed machine gun being
used in a crime (though there have been many cases of bank
robberies and other crimes committed with machine guns stolen
from National Guard armories and other military installations).
[The law's only purpose was to satisfy the visceral
urges of Congressmen to ban something they don't like.]
Satisfy is too strong a word, for that implies that now
they'll quit trying to ban firearms. They won't. [The freeze on
new machine guns, and the ease with which it passed, merely whetted
their appetite.]
Recently I received a letter from a Californian who says
he's been been an NRA member for 15 years, and who accused me of
aiding the anti-gun cause by defending private ownership of
machine guns.
Maybe so.
Machine guns aren't popular with either the press or the
general public. Neither are semi-autos that look like military
machine guns. Neither are short-barreled handguns.
But I would have a hard time defining what kind of firearm
is acceptable to the national news media. Certainly not any kind of
handgun. And not high-powered rifles with scopes on them. And
not "automatic" shotguns.
What our California friend doesn't care to face is that if
the Second Amendment doesn't address his right to own a machine
gun, then neither does it address his right to own a handgun --
nor a rifle or shotgun.
And if the lawmakers can ban legal guns that are never used
in crime, then the fact that no gun law reduces the crime rate
is irrelevant.
Unfortunately, that California NRA member isn't alone. Just when
will they be willing to fight?
Only when the proposed law threatens the guns in their
hands?
Only when it's too late?
(FOR INFORMATION ON THE FIREARMS COALITION AND A COPY
OF THE LATEST "HARD CORPS REPORT," WRITE BOX 6537, SILVER SPRING,
MD 20906. Computers can call the Bullet'N Board, 703-971-4491)
