It has been 20 years since the Clinton administration signed the federal Assault Weapons Ban into law. The legislation outlawed firearms which were considered evil and scary based solely on the way they looked rather than their actual function, lethality or usefulness. It worked much the same logic as Jim Crow laws did in the south which persecuted people based solely on the way they looked. The AWB expired after 10 years, a period in which a Department of Justice analysis concluded that the law had no effect on gun crime. Now, 10 years after the law expired, at least one prominent liberal think tank is throwing in the towel . . .
From the Center for American Progress’ report “Assault Weapons Revisited“:
While the question of what to do about the proliferation of certain military-style rifles—so-called “assault weapons”—remains open, advocates for stronger gun laws have recently focused on the question of who may possess guns, rather than which type of guns should receive heightened regulation. In the wake of the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, President Barack Obama, congressional leaders, and gun-violence prevention advocates alike made deterring dangerous people from accessing guns the top legislative priority with a proposal for comprehensive background checks for all gun sales. In April 2013, while the Senate also considered a new assault weapons ban that only mustered 40 votes, the Manchin-Toomey bill to expand background checks garnered 55 votes.
[…]
This report considers how gun laws have evolved to address different classes of firearms and looks more broadly at how federal and state laws treat rifles and shotguns differently than handguns and whether all of those distinctions continue to make sense. It also examines data on the changing nature of gun violence and the increasing use of long guns and assault rifles by criminals, with a focus on Pennsylvania as a case study.
The report stops short of outright declaring a ban on scary looking firearms off the table, but the sentiment is clear: “those who have tried to push an AWB have failed, so we should look elsewhere.” One of the authors of the paper had the following to say earlier this week, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal:
“The answer is not that assault weapons aren’t dangerous and people having access to them is a good thing,” Mr. Gerney said in an interview this week. “There are other things that we can do to lessen the risks of assault weapons short of banning them.… When you’re making policy, it’s always a mix of what’s going to have a biggest positive impact and what is practical and politically possible.”
It would be naive to believe that certain Democrat-affiliated politicians and millionaires will take this as a sign to stop pushing for their pet firearms confiscation schemes, but this is one sign that gun control extremists are switching tactics. Now that the Second Amendment has been clearly defined and strengthened through a couple supreme court cases, the only avenue of attack left to them is to go after the people instead of the guns. Once more, from the CAP report:
This shift in focus to prevent dangerous people from accessing guns is appropriate: A broad set of research suggests that such measures are effective in reducing gun violence. Additionally, there is overwhelming support in opinion polls for expanding background checks and similar measures aimed at restricting dangerous people from accessing guns.
While we might not see any real “progress” on banning and confiscating firearms in the majority of the country, what is a real possibility is a constant effort to deny as many people as possible their Constitutionally protected right to self defense by whatever means they can. Whether that’s through mental health screenings or “gun violence restraining orders” that require no actual proof or due process, the next wave of attacks on our rights will be focused on the person behind the gun instead of the firearm itself.
Nice. Thats pretty much all I have to say to this.
+1
I have something else to say…before you take a picture of your 15 year old daughter, have her get dressed. Posting her picture in her sleep garments is inappropriate. Also, before handing her a firearm, teach her how to hold it properly. If you can’t have a marshal grip of a weapon then you are asking for trouble down the road. It is a rifle…not a teddy bear. Hand and fingers have proper places and this young girl has no clue what she is doing.
There is zero indication of this female’s age. She could be 24 for all you know. And her ‘sleep wear’ is functionally indistinguishable from any other tube top and pair of pants. Additionally, she’s not holding the rifle in a shooting position, she’s posing for a picture. As long as her finger’s off the trigger and it’s not being waved around indiscriminately, I don’t see a problem.
You always handle a rifle correctly. Yes the finger is off the trigger but the trigger finger is on the grip. Completely wrong and the start and reinforcement of bad habits. Actually she looks younger than 15…I was just giving the benefit of the doubt. She really looks 13 or 14. And those are pajamas. I see girls wearing that outfit in public all the time. If I had a daughter she would not go out like that.
Upon further review I see belt loops on the pants indicating not pajamas. However I stand by my objection to sloppy gun handling whether posing for a picture or not. A wise assumption would be that given she is posing with the rifle, one day she will or she has fired the rifle. It is prudent that proper handling at all times be enforced. It needs to be ingrained because the less you have to think about and the more things come naturally to a shooter, the better. I bet Kirsten would say the same.
So instead of banning “assualt weapons” they’re gonna ban the people that wish to buy them?
My thoughts, exactly.
The fight never ends…
Hey, California’s so-called Gun Violence Restraining Order (currently sitting on the governor’s desk) reportedly considers “recent acquisition of firearms” or even ammunition as “evidence of an increased risk for violence.”
(2) In determining whether grounds for a gun violence restraining order exist, the court may consider any other evidence of an increased risk for violence, including, but not limited to, evidence of any of the following:
(A) The unlawful and reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm by the subject of the petition.
(B) The history of use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force by the subject of the petition against another person.
(C) Any prior arrest of the subject of the petition for a felony offense.
(D) Any history of a violation by the subject of the petition of an emergency protective order issued pursuant to Section 646.91 or Part 3 (commencing with Section 6240) of Division 10 of the Family Code.
(E) Any history of a violation by the subject of the petition of a protective order issued pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 6300) of Division 10 of the Family Code, Section 136.2, Section 527.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or Section 213.5 or 15657.03 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(F) Documentary evidence, including, but not limited to, police reports and records of convictions, of either recent criminal offenses by the subject of the petition that involve controlled substances or alcohol or ongoing abuse of controlled substances or alcohol by the subject of the petition.
(G) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons.
(emphasis — and flabbergasted disbelief — added)
Yes, you read that right. All you have to do is buy, inherit, borrow, find, make or otherwise acquire a firearm, a round of ammo or anything else that could be considered a “deadly weapon” (shoes, anyone?) and you qualify to have your firearms confiscated during a no-knock raid by a SWAT team.
I’m honestly surprised that Governor Moonbat didn’t sign this thing the instant it landed on his desk.
He’s waiting for Kevin de Moron to read it to him at beddy-bye time.
Moonbeam thinks he could run for the White House…That is the only reason why he has not signed it….
Gov Moonbat v. Shotgun Joe in the 2016 demtard primary slugfest. That would be good for a few laughs.
Gov. Moonbat vs Shotgun Joe vs Gov. Owe’Malley vs HRH Hillary the Destroyer. What a lineup.
With the recent defeats on the “May Issue” CCW Law and 10 Day Waiting Period Gov. Brown might be doing one of three things:
1. Waiting for the deadline since it still becomes law without his signature
2. Waiting to see who’s gonna start the lawsuits.
3. May actually be paying attention to California’s recent repealed gun laws.
o-((0.0))-o I say no. 1
@Jus Bill
Ye gods, each of those is worse than all the others combined. (Yes, I know that’s logically impossible, but it’s Democrat politics, it doesn’t have to make sense.)
Governor Moonbeam is waiting for the checks to clear from Bloomberg, Gates, Balmer, and Hannaeur, –
same guys who funded I594 up in Washington State.
Or some lunatic to shoot up a school or mall, so he has an excuse to “save the children”.
Typical thinking. You want to defend yourself, your home, or others, and you are a danger. Forget what the constitution says.
That is only one of 4 sitting on Moonbeams desk. If you’re in Kommiefornia Call, Tweet, E-mail Moonbeam and tell him NOT to SIGN
SB 808 (de Leon): **Warning: Retroactive** Requires you to permanently engrave/deface ALL un-serialized handguns (even pre-GCA ’68), and all long guns made after December 16, 1968, with a DOJ-issued serial number — even if currently legal. Criminalization of home-built firearms. Bans the sale, transfer, and inheritance of home-built firearms.
AB 1014 (Skinner): Creates “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” and “firearm seizure warrants” to strip people of Second Amendment rights and their property.
AB 1609 (Alejo): New firearm importation regulations, penalties.
SB 199 (de Leon): Redefines BB guns/imitation firearms, adds new manufacturing requirements.
I think, or rather I hope, that what is being implied here is stricter regulation upon people who are eligible to purchase these weapons. In theory, I’m not against that. Only they have yet to even come close to discerning a way to keep them out of the hands of loonies without also making it niegh impossible for respectable citizens to also acquire them. Anyway, it is good to see folks without their fingers stuck in theirs ears screaming “nananananana! We don’t like your reality so we are substituting it with our own!” Gives me some hope at least.
And your criteria in determining the ‘loonies” from the “respectables” is…?
Please be specific.
Would you care to tell us the VAST number of people murdered by these E V I L B L A C K weapons that you’d like to see ‘controlled’ As an FYI more people are killed falling down stairs than are killed by those E V I L B L A C K weapons. More people are killed by choking on a chicken bone. More people are killed by the less than intelligent, such as yourself. I believe the FBI Crime stats have the number something like 3-5. I’d look it up…AGAIN… but perhaps you should try some research before hitting the keyboard. That dog ain’t gonna hunt fella. Progressives thrive on Ignorance and Emotion.
UpChuck,
I have come to the conclusion that anyone who doesn’t like the right to own firearms are actually racists. After all most of the evil guns are BLACK and most of the REST are BROWN or mixed. Democrats have always been the party of racism and I think they hate guns because they are BLACK and BROWN. If they could figure out how to get them back on the plantation this would all stop.
They are losing their fight for control so they are changing tactics. Now the rallying cry will be stopping crazy people, because who doesn’t want to stop crazy people? They want to start with committing crazy people, then those that disagree with them will be deemed crazy and committed. Sounds like the Soviet Union to me.
Google Sluggishly Progressing Schizophrenia, Hundred of Thousands send to the nut house for being sane…
“If this is how the state treats its law-abiding citizens, it doesn’t deserve to have any”-Solzhenitsyn
“The incarceration of free thinking healthy people in madhouses is spiritual murder, it is a variation of the gas chamber, even more cruel; the torture of the people being killed is more malicious and more prolonged. Like the gas chambers, these crimes will never be forgotten and those involved in them will be condemned for all time during their life and after their death.”[46] (Alexander Solzhenitsyn)
Already heard it enough times already: “crazy people shouldn’t own guns, and since you own a gun, and guns are dangerous, you’re probably crazy.”
Escalation or nah?
re: banning as many people as they can
Bingo. And note that the think tank was also saying that they would like to get rid of the distinctions between firearms classes. That’s not because they think it’s silly to ban “assault weapons”…it’s because they’ve come to believe that not banning access to other rifles and shotguns as well could be within their grasp with the new approach. They are throwing in the towel, they’ve traded for a large trawling net.
Another step in the right direction.
Oh sure… Banning all gun purchases is progress. Read ALL the words. Slowly.
I see what you are saying; I spoke too quickly.
ead and send…
10 years ago the AWB fell.
We once thought are rights were all be gone….Now look at us…
Now we are on the verge of take down the Hughes Amendment in court with the recent actions of the ATF…
We have candidates taking about removing suppressors from the NFA list.
We are winning the legal war, the info war,, the culture war, and the war of wills…
We own the youth with a ever increasing majority of them favoring self defense over self defenselessness, being a victor over a victim.
http://www.people-press.org/files/le…l%20Issues.pdf
Choosing the blessings of liberty over the false presumptions of security..
Our future is very bright, all we must do is pledge our lives fortunes and sacred honor to the advancement of the unalienable right that protects all others against all ermines both foreign and domestic.
Vote! Stop with the complain…Just do it.
Talk to the fence sitters, and yes the antis worse case talking to them is they show their real colors as the violent control freaks most of them are.
Teach, your kids, their friends, their patents, ect…
Donate, not just you money, but time and efforts, but that being said if a candidate is in another state, 50$ is a great investment compared to ammo storage and panic buys..
Stand fast against the actions of the Federal Government should the go full retard…
Remember nothing worth having is ever easy to get or maintain and if you do not fight for what you love do not cry when it is taken from you…
“Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.”
― Daniel Webster
+1. Well said. Grass roots works, across the nation, working to same long term goals, brick by brick on a strong foundation of law supporting 2A. Vote out the politicians who dont support it, and bring new ones in, who do. The culture is slowly changing but it will take continuous work, to keep the tide growing.
I hope every day that the Hughes amendment gets struck down. I want a full auto of my choosing and not have to take out a new car loan to acquire one. I want a Full auto сучка.
Well with the recent actions of the ATF with their rejection of Form 1 with trust…We will final take that law to court, We are building a class action lawsuit..
The NYT had a similar op-ed this week (The “Assault Weapon Myth” ). Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Many people, including myself, were lulled into thinking that the Democrats had declared a truce on guns after Gore lost.
In reality, this is old news: remember, the Obama admin in Jan 2013 itself put out a memo saying the assault weapons ban had no effect. The result was: Weapons bans passed in MD, CT, NY, and elsewhere. And, a ban proposed by Feinswine in the Senate.
The evidence has always been there. They ignored it and pushed laws at the state level. This is a sign that they realize they are in trouble on the issue. Dems went way to the left under Obama. Don’t be fooled into thinking they have changed their mind or softened on the issue. The evidence is there that background checks and registration does not work either, along with the myriad silly laws in places like MD.
If you are lulled into complacency, fail to vote these bums out, because you think this time it’s different, then this time it’s your fault.
I’ll believe they have changed their mind when I see laws repealed in places like NYC.
Listen, and understand. That the grabbers are still out there and will always be outer there. They can’t be bargained with.They can’t be reasoned with. They doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And They absolutely will not stop, ever, until your rights are dead.
Kyle Reese summed them up very well did he not?
Sort of. Fundamentally what you are dealing with insofar as the “gun grabbers” are pacifists who think that the path to safety is unilateral disarmament. Pacifists who think that the path to safety is unilateral disarmament don’t grasp the fundamental principal of deterrence, and think that all people (including ISIS and Putin) are fundamentally “good,” just “misinformed.” The concept of humans as predators willing to kill to achieve an end (like a drug cartel) just does not compute. You need to address them on that level.
“the “gun grabbers” are pacifists”
With all do respect, I disagree.
First of all, that is an over generalization. There are some true pacifists among them.
But, there are an awfully lot of them that have no problem with violence and killing…so long as it’s the ‘right people’ being targeted.
The elite among them have no problem ordering the deaths of others, and for others to execute those orders.
Some among them almost daily call for death of us…people that have harmed them in no way ever.
Some believe that anyone that dares question the transcendental sovereignty of The State deserve death. Cf a lot of the responses to the Cliven Bundy situation, for example. Not just Bundy should got jail, but calls for supporters to have been shot.
Sorry, man. There is no way you will convince me they are pacifists. To believe that, one has to believe the grabbers’ goal is about “guns” when it is not. It is about “control.”
We have for the last 50 years. They have a An idée fixe which is is a preoccupation of mind held so firmly as to resist any attempt to modify it.
Why do we have to suffer for their mental illness?
“there are an awfully lot of them that have no problem with violence and killing”
Well, sure, there is that. But in real life people are not that polarized and the concept of “transcendental sovereignty” does not factor into the equation. All they hear is blah blah blah. They fundamentally believe drug dealers will be thwarted by laws, based on pseudoscience that fails to incorporate the incentive to kill other people. And who puts out the pseudoscience? The pacifists on the left.
If you assume people are a lost cause, don’t listen, and cannot be persuaded, they will be.
I think we’re dealing with four kinds of adversaries:
– True pacifists, who are a tiny minority
– The gullible, deluded and uninformed, who are the foot-soldier “sheeple” who form the majority of any group
– The “figurehead” authorities like media pundits and political “leaders”
– The ruthless control freaks and megalomaniacs who really run the show.
You can count the latter on your fingers, but their money and position give them overwhelming power over the former.
When one looks at those that plan and work for citizen disarmament and the concentration camps, gulags, killing fields and planned mass starvation of entire societies that comes from this mentality; it would be a relief to believe that only a souless machine could be capable of such a blood soaked history.
“Listen, and understand. That the grabbers are still out there and will always be outer there. They can’t be bargained with.They can’t be reasoned with. They doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And They absolutely will not stop, ever, until your rights are dead.”
And what’s more you aren’t allowed to use your phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range to do something about them.
“Dems went way to the left under Obama.”
As an actual left winger, I wish this was true. Sadly, it’s not. If Obama ran for office anywhere in Europe he’d be a member of a center-right wing party.
Obama is also a repressed gun grabber, who largely stays away from the issue because he’s smart, but I’m sure secretly dreams of America being one of those countries where you need a permit to buy a BB gun.
But a leftist, he most certainly is not. Nor is any other Democrat in any prominent elected office. The last guy who could even come close was maybe Paul Wellstone.
Just a reminder folks: our RTKBA is not a right left issue. The vagaries of American politics have temporarily aligned most of the gun grabbers with the Democratic coalition and many of the defenders with the Republican one. But it was not always so, and it’s not always going to be so.
Drudge says this is the New York Times Sunday lead…
NYT LEAD SUNDAY: Judges appointed by Dems now hold majority of seats on U.S. Courts of Appeals… Developing…
THAT is where 2A battle really lies…
So, one small step closer to admitting that the goal isn’t gun-control, it’s CONTROL.
Thank God for this article. I was convinced all of my guns were defective since none of them ever jumped out of the safe on their own and started killing people.
Its actually gun owners fault. Guns are only made for killing and 100 million gun owners didn’t kill anyone last year.
Its clear we all just don’t know how to properly use our firearms.
Every now and then they let the veil slip a little, and I grin a bit. I know.
“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain…”
Well I am one of those folks who would say that the modern sporting rifle or black gun assault rifle is ugly… And I have owned an Armilite AR-180 since I bought it new in 1969 (traded in a original Colt AR-15 for it) so you can see I am not anti black gun; even if I do think the AR-180 with it’s folding stock and quick detachable scope that holds it’s zero when removed and replaced is one of the best looking black guns.
But if I look over at the area above my fireplace and the Winchester rifles there the 1886 in 45-70 the 1885 in 45-90 and the 1873 in 44-40 with a fine Kentucky flintlock long rifle with German silver furniture they make a fine display and to me are beautiful firearms …
The 180 lives in the safe and does not get wall display treatment. Other walls in my house display my Winchester shotguns the model 21 and the black diamond grade model 12 or the Pope-Ballard target single shot.
Yes it was expensive to upgrade my alarm system so that they are alarmed while displayed but they give me much joy to contemplate them and there is room in the safe for them when I am away from home on vacation.
I finally got a line on a really nice double rifle. A real show piece. I can’t wait to make a wall mount for it using some warthog tusks.
I too, want to be able to look at it and contemplate past and future hunts. Look at a beautiful thing as others would a painting, or sculpture.
I disagree with your esthetic sense of what is ugly, but I can’t disagree with you on what you do like.
Nick has a new friend and she is holding his favorite rifle. She may want one of her own before you get it back.
The anti-gunners will never stop. It is all ebb and flow. Do not trust them. Ever.
“…When you’re making policy, it’s always a mix of what’s going to have a biggest positive impact and what is practical and politically possible.”
Okay, I call BS on this (not that it’s any different from all their other BS). They always go for the biggest emotional warm fuzzy victory, but what will actually have a positive impact is never even on their radar, as they have proven time and time again.
I call B.S. too.
None of the things the report suggests would make a bit of difference in the two-thirds of so-called “gun violence deaths” that are suicides. Banning standard-capacity mags? Ridiculous when it comes to intentional self-inflicted GSWs. Forcing dealers to report multiple purchases of long guns in a specified period? Nope.
If they truly want to “make the biggest impact,” focus on mental health, and leave firearms, bridges, rope, and toasters with cords long enough to reach the bathtub out of it.
Boobs.
Oh and nice article too I guess.
I am just curious why she is wearing pajamas to the range.
Nick, I read the whole report, and I do not think it is our friend. The entire premise is that “assault weapons” are a problem (“the question is what to do about the proliferation of assault weapons”) and the authors rely on numerous statistics compiled by MDA.
For example:
AR-15-type assault rifles—which are now the most popular rifles in the U.S. market and have been the weapon of choice for many recent mass shooters…
See how they twisted the story on AR-15s? One second they’re the most popular rifle in the U.S. The authors don’t bother considering that they are virtually never used in crimes. Instead, they poison their reputation by labeling them the deranged mass-murderer’s gun. (Even that comment had to be couched in innuendo, i.e., “the weapon of choice for many recent mass shooters.” The double-qualifier makes the wording technically accurate, but the meaning is just as irresponsible and defamatory as describing the Honda Civic as “the vehicle of choice for 100 percent of mass shooters in Connecticut who murdered their mothers, stole their weapons and then drove to an elementary school to murder two dozen people.”
Also consider the first paragraph of the report’s conclusion:
From the muskets of the Revolutionary War era and the machine guns of Prohibition to the assault rifles favored by today’s mass shooters, different histori- cal moments have focused attention on different types of guns and their proper place in society. Each time, there has been recognition that some guns are poten- tially more dangerous than others and may warrant heightened regulation.
See what they did there? The first sentence shifts the assumption about firearms from “necessary instruments for overcoming tyranny” (Revolutionary era muskets) to criminal rattatatt-tatt mobsters (machine guns) to the truly evil (“the assault weapons favored by today’s mass shooters”).
Also, that’s completely inaccurate. There is no evidence that muskets were regarded as more dangerous than other weapons or required heightened regulation.
Nick, your observation about the report stopping short of calling for an outright ban is true, but you’re a more generous man than I am when it comes to interpreting the intent of the authors.
Well, let’s see – who funds the think tanks? The mega rich and mega powerful. Who are all in favor of the proles being armed. Riiiiight…
Be very careful. Center for American Progress is the Soro’s funded non-profit that is the coordinating strategic and tactical leadership for Progressivism v2.0 in the US. It has spawned and funded a massive network of “community groups” that pretend to represent one thing or another, but are working together for long-term goals that dont reflect the will of voters, only the Elite Who Know Whats Best For Us Little Folks.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6709
What CAP is saying to the faithful is stop screwing up, chasing the AWB, and focus on universal background checks and firearms registration. This is the very dangerous key step to confiscation.
Talking about mental health and preventing dangerous people is a smoke screen. Those measures are already funded (although underfunded in mental health) and plenty of law describes the crimes and penalties, at state and federal levels. CAP is not interested in pouring more money into mental health training, facilities, law enforcement training or subsidies to poor communities, or they would already be doing it.
CAP is top down socialism, on a wide range of issues- government controlled healthcare, more government regulation, income redistribution, climate control, middle east peace that comes down to “free gaza” and so on… Socialism, in otherwords, led by the Enlightened, such as Soros, and his puppets Obama, Clinton, Kerry, et al.
We know from history that central planning simply doesnt work. Progressives wont go quietly, however, and are re-grouping- 2A rights are the canary in the coal mine of individual freedom from the tyrranny of an over-powerful State.
Fight them on every single patch, or lose this right, and lose the larger fight. This is a culture war, that will either end, as the former Soviet Union ended, with a clatter, when the inevitable failure of central planning became obvious, or in more messy ways, as in the French Revolution, and Bonapartist variant of autocratic rule by a chosen few.
NYT got the memo- and the 2A crowd is noticing…and not impressed.
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/09/well-whoop-de-doo-after-30-years-of.html
Remember, this is a juke-step, by the Anti-Gun crowd- turning a defeat into a pr – spinned move to look “reasonable”, and ask for “common-sense” compromise…
Get ready for a coordinated call for UBC and national fire-arms registration, probably to cover for illegal database construction via fusion centers and other sources of data, that if leaked would be another huge black eye, to go with NSA spying on US Citizens, CIA spying on Congress, the AP, Foreign leaders by PRISM, Google privacy suits lost in Europe, etc.
Just looking for a reason to legitimize what they have already largely begun to collect, IMHO.
“A broad set of research suggests that such measures are effective in reducing gun violence. ”
I would love to know what research he is referring to. Anybody know?
“Once upon a time…”
Perhaps “broad set of research” translates to “sampling of comments on Moms Demand Action’s Facebook page”?
From the WSJ article cited in the post: “Instead, CAP makes an argument for six policy prescriptions … expand the prohibition on interstate handgun sales to include shotguns and rifles”.
I love this line from the report,
“… background checks and similar measures aimed at restricting dangerous people from accessing guns.”
Their measures may restrict “dangerous people” from purchasing firearms from FFLs … but their measures in no way, shape, or form restrict dangerous people from accessing guns from other sources.
I have decided to learn from our opponents. Instead of saying I am a proponent of the Second Ammendment I hearby declare myself to be a “violence prevention advocate” as evidenced by my concealed handgun. I hope every one will join me in this common sense violence prevention step. Do it for the children. I think we can all agree something needs to be done and just this one common sense action could save thousands of lives.
If at first you don’t succeed, try try again. It’s the same game just a different approach. Don’t be lulled into a false sense of security. All wont be well until we have constitutional carry and ownership across the whole country
Apparently they also want permits to buy “assault weapons” – http://www.guns.com/2014/09/13/think-tank-proposes-assault-weapon-permits-in-place-of-bans/
This is looking more and more like same old, same old …
” It also examines data on the changing nature of gun violence and the increasing use of long guns and assault rifles by criminals, with a focus on Pennsylvania as a case study.”
Pfft. Increasing use of long guns and MODERN SPORTING RIFLES my ass!
Cases involving long guns/rifles have been consistently between 300-400 for years. They are not increasing, Period.
A concern of mine is how more antis are recognizing the nonsense of the term “assault weapons,” which IMO could be dangerous, because it means they will advance to saying that all semiautomatic guns with detachable box magazines should be outlawed.
Gun. Rack.
Oh wait, this isn’t the photo caption contest.
Quick test, replace ‘guns’ with ‘voting’ in any of the proposals, and check for sanity.
“Additionally, there is overwhelming support in opinion polls for expanding background checks and similar measures aimed at restricting dangerous people from voting.”
Well, IMHO, the problems with gun grabbers and anti’s just got significantly bigger. When the ability of one for owning a gun is under question, then you have big problems.
In fact, all restrictive firearms legislation is based on that: norms/regulations that establish who is and who isn’t able to own a gun. And is the most perverted form of restriction, mainly because it tends to become, more or less, a “blanket restriction” for ample categories, and all cases of abuse have to be fought individually. And the medicalization of firearms rights of ownership is implicit. This means that you will fight with definitions of terms, devious terms and formulations of those, socialist partisan “specialists” and their way of understanding things, and so on.
And for many of those there are already legal precedents: for instance, in the moment that CCW classes and training was adopted and even applauded by many, even by those that fight for 2A, implicitly you admitted that no human, by default, is able to own and carry a gun. Which is contrary to the presumption of innocence, at the core of it. So, it was admitted that 2A can be conditioned. And this is only one of many examples. Remember when I said, around here, that your enemy is far more devious than you can imagine?
Therefore, sorry to say, but a long and tedious battle seems to rise ahead. What was until now it will seem like a walk in the park.
There is only one thing that can be done to counter all these anti’s can and will do to restrict 2A: force the 2A spirit to spread around the world. Stop being the exception. On the other hand, that is no easy task and usually people are unlikely, when faced with what they perceive as an immediate threat, to accept that the solution is to reach outside themselves and gain allies. You have the potential means to do that, you have the politicians that can influence many of your allies in such a direction, and you have the money, as the only real civilian market for firearms, to force other countries to accept, by menacing the revenues of their firearms industry, the spirit of 2A. Long story, short: your only chance is to gain allies and stop being the exception.
As long as US is the exception, with 2A and the entire Bill of Rights, as long there are not so many constitutional republics in the civilized world, your problems will not get smaller. Quite the contrary: they will get bigger, forcing you to get smaller.
” …the next wave of attacks on our rights will be focused on the person behind the gun instead of the firearm itself.”
But that’s a closer version of the statement many have been making for awhile. That it’s not the gun that committed the crime, but the person that pulled the trigger. The problem is that it’s the devil in the details on how you go about implementing it. That’ll be the true battle.
Comments are closed.