Posted on December 31, 2012
Ayn Rand once wrote, “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
When talking about the current banter in Washington to “take assault rifles off the street” you can’t help but think back to Rand’s quote. After all, there are literally hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners who have purchased so-called “assault rifles.” Many of them own AKs and other similarly mislabeled “assault rifles” (NOTE: I don’t buy into the term “assault weapon.” I think it’s only used to scare the ignorant sheeple and stigmatize a particular category of firearm and its owners. However, for the purposes of this post, I will use the abbreviation AW to appease those sheeple and help them understand the basis of their absurdity. – CJ)
One only needs to look at history to find evidence that all this hoopla about how bad AWs are to see that banning them isn’t the answer. All it will do is serve to stigmatize those who own them or create a new breed of law-abiding “criminal.”
Prior to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, only about 8% of crimes were committed with an AW, according to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service. But, what most people don’t realize is that a majority of those AW were so-called “assault pistols,” pistols that were capable of using large capacity magazines (LCM). In other words, only a tiny, tiny fraction of crimes committed prior to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban were committed by those scary-looking AKs and AR rifles. The statistics are far smaller today.
It’s easy to look back over the 10 years that the law was on the books and see that it had no effect on crimes committed with AW. The truth about the ban is that ignorant idiots occupying elected seats meant for intelligent adults only want to ban something that looks scary. It isn’t about safety, but about appearance. Just look at what Senator Diane FrankenFeinstein is trying to introduce in the next week to revive the ban.
The new law would ban the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of 120 specifically-named firearms. There is no word on what those are, but in an age when any individual can create a small, mom-and-pop gun shop it seems odd that they would specifically target manufacturers. It will also ban “certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic.” What are those “military characteristics” you may ask? Pistol grip, adjustable stock, thumbhole stock, threaded barrel, bayonet mounts, and other cosmetic features. Nothing to do with safety features and everything to do with how the weapon looks.
Finally, according to FrankenFeinstein’s press release, she will ban “semiautomatic rifles and handguns.” That means that just about EVERY SINGLE firearm out there will be banned by this so-called good faith effort to reduce extremely rare school shootings committed by criminal-minded people. The only thing that wouldn’t cover is bolt-action and muzzle-loading rifles and revolvers. Nearly every single hunting rifle is a semi-automatic. Nearly every pistol is a semi-automatic.
But, don’t fear. The law would grandfather those of us who already legally own these menacing weapons. Is it no wonder that there is a six-month backlog for new AR-style rifles in this country right now? Without a threat of a ban, many of these evil, single-minded weapons would still be sitting on store shelves. Now, they are sitting in the comfortable home of their newfound owners drinking cappuccino and sipping rum.
At the Dallas Gun Show last weekend, there was more than a 30-minute wait outside the venue in sub-freezing temperatures just to get in. Everyone and their mother was in there buying these weapons at, most often, twice their value! People were even paying $1000 for a barely decent M1 Garand!!
Anyway, back to the ignorant politician. Watch this interview of Senator Diane Feinstein as she talks about the ban she’s going to introduce. See how many inaccuracies you can find.
Okay, just to name a few:
“The assault weapon is developed for military purposes to kill in close combat.” WRONG. Yes, the M4 and M16 were initially created for the military, but like nearly every single military small arm in our history, it was eventually altered slightly for civilian enjoyment and personal defense. What’s good enough for our troops is good enough for its citizens. The M4 and M16 are not “close combat,” though that is why the weapon was shortened in the M4 variant. The pistol is a “close combat” weapon while the M4 and M16 are small arms offensive and defensive weapons. There is reason that we are required to train on targets up to 300 meters annually and not inside buildings, which is what “close combat” is. Sure, they are used in “close combat” but that is their “purpose” as stated by the Senator.
When asked how her legislation would have prevented what happened at Sandy Hook, Feinstein remarked, “over time that weapon would be much less available.” WRONG. The ban would only make NEW such weapons less available. There are hundreds of thousands of these in homes across America – more recently thanks to the Senator. So, just as the 1994 ban didn’t stop such crimes like, oh, Columbine or the Oklahoma City bombing, neither would this one.
“It would ban weapons by actual name and then by physical characteristics.” Ok, what “physical characteristics” make a weapon more or less lethal or deadly? Thumb stock? No. Adjustable stock? No. Threaded barrel (purportedly for a silencer to be attached)? No. Pistol grip? No. Bayonet attachment? No. When was the last time someone mounted a bayonet and began stabbing people with an AW?! This is the fallaciousness of the liberal thought process.
“It’s the clip that enables you to have the firepower.” WRONG. In order to have “firepower” there are several components you need and a clip isn’t one of them. You need a firing mechanism – usually the weapon. You need the projectile or bullet. And – now this is the hard part to get through think skulls of mush buying into gun control hysteria – you need someone to combine them and make them function together. There are guns without any clips (or magazines) at all. The mere presence of a LCM doesn’t make a crime any more or less heinous. And depending on the shooter, it doesn’t really slow them down either.
Just look at the Beltway sniper incident a few years ago. Those people were all killed by a single bullet fired at long range. A ten-round magazine wouldn’t have stopped those killings. There were ten people killed and three more critically injured before the perpretrators, racists John Allen Muhommad and Lee Boyd Malvo, were captured. So, while the weapon used was a .223 Bushmaster rifle, the shooter could have easily used a bolt action “hunting rifle” and gotten the same effect.
“These guns kill large numbers of people very quickly. They aren’t used for hunting. They aren’t hunting weapons. You don’t need them for defense. They are military-style weapons and they don’t belong in the streets of our cities or our towns.” WRONG. First of all, semi-automatic handguns are used twice as often to commit crimes and mass murder than AW. Notice I didn’t say that semi-auto handguns kill twice as many people. There is a difference. Remember what I said earlier. A gun is just an inanimate object without someone to create the action that works the firing mechanism.
Second, I’ve used my AW for hunting numerous times. I used it to hunt hogs; I used it to hunt coyotes; and I’ve used it to hunt deer (though I never got to fire a shot). Who is the arbiter of what I’m allowed to hunt with? Never mind that this whole “hunting” argument is false on its premise to begin with. The 2A doesn’t say a word about hunting. The framers weren’t talking about hunters when they envisioned the 2A. I challenge ANYONE to find me ONE quote during the debate and/or passage of the 2A that so much as REFERENCES hunting as the reason it was included. Liberals keep trying to further this false premise that if you aren’t a hunter, you don’t need a gun. Or, if you are a hunter, you have to use a limited number of guns with which to hunt.
Thomas Jefferson once said (emphasis mine), “On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
So, it’s important to find the meaning of the 2A when it was passed. That is very easy to do. And doing so will prove once and for all that it has NOTHING to do with hunting. So, let’s do that. Here are a few quotes that I particularly like that explain EXACTLY what the 2A is there for.
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment)
“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason) Doesn’t sound like anything to do with hunting since we can’t be enslaved by deer or antelope.
“…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” (Alexander Hamilton)
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe) If the 2A referred to only government-sponsored militaries, they wouldn’t use the term “private arms.” The government provides the military with small arms. Though I realize that back during the revolutionary times the military was made up of individuals and their arms used. During the Civil War, we learned that it was better to have a universal type and caliber of weapon.
And this is perhaps my favorite quote by Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
Notice a common theme there? There is no talk of hunting. There is no talk of even just target practice. The common refrain here is that our Founders recognized the perversion that is a federal government (Thomas Paine called it a “necessary evil”) and wanted to ensure that the people were properly prepared to respond to a tyrannical government as they had to. This is also why the argument that “the Founding Fathers never envisioned today’s weapons” is also fallacious from the beginning. It is imperative that “the People” are just as well armed, if not more so, than the government so that it may be able to defend itself from it. After all, gun control only leads to economic and governmental slavery. The restraints on government are unchallenged and people are left powerless.
I proved here that, again, Frankenfeinstein is wrong in saying that AW are not needed for defense. They most assuredly are. If such weapons weren’t good for defense, we wouldn’t be using them in the military.
“The people have had it. They have had it in fear.” RIGHT. But for the WRONG reasons she expresses. Why the fear? Because in every single incidence of a mass shooting in the recent years, EVERY SINGLE ONE was committed in a “gun free zone.” The movie theater. The mall. The schools. Churches. You name it. When people can’t defend themselves appropriately, there is real fear and for good reason. She talks about the Colorado shooter coming in with a 100-round clip. It jammed, as every single one I’ve ever seen or used tends to do. “It jammed. So, if that drum hadn’t jammed, he would have killed many more people.” So, the 100-round clip, while possessing potential to help a killer on his mission, usually doesn’t work. When was the last time ANYONE used a 100-round clip to commit a mass murder? Didn’t think so. We can “what if” these issues all day long. What if the new ban was in effect and the shooter had a vest with ten to twenty 10-round clips on his person? Doesn’t really seem much safer, does it? Fallacy.
All these so-called bans do is create a new class of criminal – law abiding citizens who otherwise have done nothing wrong but possess a weapon used separately and independently by an unrelated criminal. By that logic, every person that owns a knife is guilty of stabbings. Everyone that has a penis is guilty of rape. Everyone that has a candlestick killed Colonel Mustard in the Observatory. It’s that silly.
What I take extreme umbrage to is the thought that just because someone has an AW, they should be looked at with suspicion and tracked like cattle.
In the original 1984 cult classic, Red Dawn, one of the leaders of the communist invasion force instructs his subordinates to go into town and collect paperwork on the registration of gunsowners. They are then singled out and placed in concentration camps. Some are executed.
Now, while that is a movie, it isn’t much of a leap to figure out what the government would do with the kind of registrations Senator Feinstein is wanting when it decides to further oppress the people and elevate its tyranny on them. There is absolutely NO reason that people with a particular style of gun needs to be watched, monitored, or in any other way have their 4A rights violated except for sinister purposes.