For more than three decades American citizens have been assaulted. That assault comes not from firearms, but by a branding campaign started by Handgun Control, Inc. (now, after half a dozen rebrandings, known simply as the Brady) that sought to change the way Americans view firearms to make it easier to impose an outright ban on those that look particularly scary.
The spearhead of that assault has been the myth of the “assault weapon,” a firearm supposedly so deadly and dangerous that it needs to be removed from the streets with all possible speed. Anyone who was paying attention recognized this deft bit of propaganda for what it was: a fabrication designed to instill fear and generate votes.
Now, after years flag-waving for the campaign to force Americans to believe in this horse hockey, the New York Times – yes, the Grey Lady herself – has published an article titled “The Assault Weapon Myth” in which they finally come clean . . .
The article opens strong:
OVER the past two decades, the majority of Americans in a country deeply divided over gun control have coalesced behind a single proposition: The sale of assault weapons should be banned.
That idea was one of the pillars of the Obama administration’s plan to curb gun violence, and it remains popular with the public. In a poll last December, 59 percent of likely voters said they favor a ban.
But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.
All completely true, and things we’ve known all along. Rifles of any kind make up less than 2% of the total number of firearms used in the commission of any crime (and “assault rifles” an even smaller percentage), so it makes sense that banning a firearm that is rarely used in the commission of a crime would have little to no impact on reducing crime. It’s a blatantly obvious logical conclusion, and one that the Times has assiduously ignored for decades.
It’s nice to see the “paper of record” finally doing some research rather than parroting the latest garbage spouted by the civilian disarmament industrial complex. The real glimmer of hope, though, comes at the bottom of the article. For most of the piece the Times attempts to rationalize their constant drumbeat for advocating for the now-acknoledged useless ban, rolling out old chestnuts like “the American people wanted it” (they don’t) and “‘assault weapons are used in mass shootings so they are more dangerous” (Virginia Tech — I rest my case). It seems like the paper is finally admitting that guns really aren’t the problem after all.
More than 20 years of research funded by the Justice Department has found that programs to target high-risk people or places, rather than targeting certain kinds of guns, can reduce gun violence.
David M. Kennedy, the director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, argues that the issue of gun violence can seem enormous and intractable without first addressing poverty or drugs. A closer look at the social networks of neighborhoods most afflicted, he says, often shows that only a small number of men drive most of the violence. Identify them and change their behavior, and it’s possible to have an immediate impact.
Working with Professor Kennedy, and building on successes in other cities, New Orleans is now identifying the young men most at risk and intervening to help them get jobs. How well this strategy will work in the long term remains to be seen.
But it’s an approach based on an honest assessment of the real numbers.
For as long as I can remember, gun control activists in New York state have treated firearms as if they were talismans of evil. They believe that every gang banger and mass murderer is in fact a good kid trying to get out. It was only the addition of a firearm that caused them to snap and commit their heinous crimes.
The fantasy that simply removing guns from the equation – as if that were possible – would solve all of the city’s problems is a pervasive one, and continues to this day. It’s strange to see people who view themselves as intellectuals believe that demonic objects can force individuals to commit crimes. Yet that’s the pervasive New York gun control mentality.
While it’s definitely an appealing concept and makes a solution to the perceived problem seem easy to implement, removing guns does not in fact reduce the crime rate. Crimes are not caused by guns, and so limiting access to them is ultimately ineffectual. Against all odds, it seems the Times may have finally realized that the root cause of crime isn’t an evil object that forces otherwise good citizens to break the law. There’s more to the story, and focusing on the contributing factors is a better expenditure of effort than “quick fix” solutions that have been proven not to work.
It’s elating to finally see the New York Times – that paragon of liberal conventional wisdom – actually examining the facts about guns and arriving at a logical and reasoned conclusion rather than simply screaming that we need to ban these satanic tools of death and destruction. I sincerely hope that this new fact-based reporting will catch on. Pardon me, though, if I don’t hold my breath.
Give people real hope and change and they, for the most part, will give up crimes and violence and come back to the milk and cookie side.
Barry’s biggest crime, amongst many, is that he never gave a phuck about hope and change. It was just a slogan to be used and discarded to him.
Yup. Slogans are easy, and easy fixes are popular.
For every complex problem, there are many solutions that are simple, obvious, and dead wrong. Like banning guns, for instance, to reduce crime.
Real answers that work require hard work, perserverence, and the willingness to try something new when what you’re doing isn’t working. None of which fits into the current political mentality, unfortunately, especially the admitting-you’re-wrong part.
Hope and change needs to be made into hard work and faith.
he never gave a phuck about hope and change
I think you’re very wrong with this.
Obama certainly HOPES to FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM (change) the country into a socialist utopia. The fact that he’ll destroy the last vestige of Americanism in the process of trying to reach the Leftist wet-dream is just another benefit to him.
Looks to me like they are changing strategies and are gearing up to attack handgun ownership instead of long gun ownership much in the same way England started with banning handguns and later long guns.
The good news I see is this may divide the gun control activists. Granted this may further erode any credibility they may have had with the general ignorant voter….
‘The real glimmer of hope, though, comes at the bottom of the article.’
That’s SOP for the Times. If you want truth from them it’s best to just skip to paragraph 26 on page 18.
After reading the article it seems to me that they are considering flipping back to handgun control (semi automatic high capacity handguns) as the main propaganda strategy.
Having seen this flip flop between whatever gun they can demonize as a strategy I am not buying the sudden conversion to facts and honesty.
There have been some very outlandish “victories” for gun control, especially in Connecticut, New York, Maryland, California etc that have moved the needle toward making eventual confiscation a technically practical event. Massive registration under the guise of “background checks” and in Connecticut the looming possibility of removing due process in the confiscation of guns under the guise of “violence against women”
This flip flop fits into the rolling, rhythmic strategy of attack on one front until it is worn out, then go back on the offensive on another front.
I had exactly the same reaction to this report. I think we need to keep a close eye on the NY Times as they are utterly untrustworthy. So, I would applaud New Orleans new approach, but approach the NY Times’ “new attitude” with the same caution I would approach a rattlesnake.
That was very much my suspicion also. The statement:
“Handguns were used in more than 80 percent of murders each year, but gun control advocates had failed to interest enough of the public in a handgun ban. Handguns were the weapons most likely to kill you, but they were associated by the public with self-defense. (In 2008, the Supreme Court said there was a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.)”
indicates the puzzle the anti-2 A. element must solve.
Their “gun control target of choice”, so-called “assault weapons”, are meaningless in crime prevention. At the same time, the duality of handguns as both tools of crime and heavily favored as the means of self-defense by the American public, makes sidearms a far more difficult subject for them to attack.
The ftp-flop will go Universal Background Checks. This is their new rally cry. All the anti-gun agitators are moving to Background Checks. You will see this more next year and during the presidential election cycle.
Background checks are the new assault weapons
It is well known and inherently obvious that UBC won’t change a thing, but they really, really want the accompanying registration. I wonder why.
I agree they really do want it (and I think I know why), but they don’t even need the registration for this to be extremely harmful. Their UBC system could surely “malfunction” once it’s in their hands, and refuse to approve sales, or more and more people could be added to the classes that aren’t allowed to possess.
To anyone reading this, don’t focus so much on the registration that you fail to see the hazard inherent in the background check process itself. Giving them UBC without registration (if they offered that as a “compromise”) would be just as bad.
Link it to voting. Background checks on all gun purchases? Fine. Background checks on all votes, then. Same background check system, too, with the same data and the same rules.
+1
It may only be a dream and a practical impossibility, given the present condition of our civil society, but it would be just grand to see “If you are fit to vote, you are fit to carry” and vice versa.
It’s always been about handguns. Sure, there have been distractions on the way but it’s always been about the handguns. For the past hundred years, banning hand guns has been the goal of the gun control movement.
Yep, this is a signal to the useful idiots to stop talking about rifles and switch to handguns.
Remember to always ask yourself, “Cui bono?”
When I read the article yesterday, my takeaway was that the efforts to ban assault weapons were a problem only in that they detracted from the more important efforts to ban handguns. The author had no problems banning assault weapons, as long as handguns were first. Any truths that were put forth therein were intended to rouse readers against the bigger problem (for the NYT and the author) of a complete ban on handguns. Hardly a celebration of assault rifles, as I read it.
Sorry folks but it’s not drugs and poverty.
Next time you’re in a crowd and you think highly of yourself (thus we can say you’re of AVERAGE intelligence), look around, 50% of the people around you are DUMBER than you.
There’s the 1% rich and the 1% dumb! mean and ruthless. It’s a normal curve.
Thus no matter what 1% (say 3.5 million people) in this country are always going to use violence. If not guns, then machetes or box cutters or pizza cutters.
There’s a certain group prone to violence no matter what. Interventions only keep social scientists and psycho doctors off the unemployment line. Tigers don’t change their stripes, that is why I carry a firearm.
There are people who rob out of desperation (poverty, addicted to drugs, you get the idea) and then there are those who do it for a living.
And then there are those who commit crime for the adrenaline rush, making armed robbery particularly dangerous for the prey…
Recourse predator vs. process predator.
They will never target the small group who actually do perpetrate the large amount of violence because racism would be shouted from coast to coast.
So, per the article the other day, a report comes out saying the progs need to shift tactics to going after people instead of scary black rifles and the NYT follows suit (to a point) a couple days later. Take note, strategy is about to shift at a national level and as I said a couple of weeks ago, beware the mental health trap. I can see a shift to UBC’s with mental health screening as the center tent pole of the gun control crowd. Further, “gun violence restraining order” type legislation will be pushed at the national level. If grabbers can’t get the object banned, they’ll try to get the person banned. They are same group that wants people control, they just found a new tactic. That is all.
The mental health trap is something that will probably not get that much thought put into it. Who can be against crazy people getting ahold of guns! (The definition of crazy would most likely be veyr fluid and not rationally based) I would use asset forfeiture laws as an example. Sounds good on the outside. Taking away the property of drug dealers gained from selling an illicit substance. Then it slowly creeps into other realms besides what it was intended for. I can guarantee any mental health laws passed would eventually be used in areas it was not intended for. Due process would get tossed out of the window. Politicians and bureaucrats spend a lot of time thinking of ways to bend words or phrases to allow them to make what they want to do legal and what you do illegal.
Correct. Gun control is no more about “guns” than rape is about sex. The aim of both groups (rapists & “gun controlers”) is to control, demean, and deprive others of basic, fundamental rights. The mental capacity of both rapists & gun control freaks is identical.
@ Charlie Lima I LIKE your analogy of rapists and gun control advocates! It’s kind of down and dirty, but nicely reflects the kinds of epithets they throw at us, and I mean that in a completely complimentary way. Unlike most of their venom it actually makes a valid comparison. Well done!
“59 percent of likely voters said they favor a ban.”
LOL. Bullshit. I would love the grey hag to cite the poll, the demographics and the exact wording of the question. No fucking way 59% of Americans favor an AWB.
I can believe it, since the average voter probably has no concept of what “assault weapons” are aside from “guns that I think are scary and should be banned.” The gun control lobby made the concept vague and vacuous for exactly that reason. So in other words, they could only get 59% of their sample to agree with the statement “I think the guns that I think should be banned should be banned. ” Not a very impressive showing, when you get right down to it.
Yeah, they’re going to target people instead of things. And the people they’re going to target is us.
I think this means its time for Plan B Codename: “Pistol Pickup” since Plan A Codename: “Scary Black Rifles and Shoulder Thingys” failed horribly.
No, it’s not elating. It just means that gun control proponents are trying to get their base to redirect away from something that has been proven to be a repeat failure. Look for them to be redirected back to the old standby of “let’s ban all handguns.”
Clarification: Read the list of other articles written by the author of this one:
http://www.propublica.org/site/author/lois_beckett
First in the list: “Why Do Democrats Keep Trying to Ban Guns That Look Scary, Not the Guns That Kill the Most People?”
And then it will take another 30 years for them to find out that legally owned handguns are not involved in most violent crimes.
Right, they gave up overnight. Liars yesterday, truth-tellers today. Dont let your guard down.
Just wanted to chime in, I’m not sure what shotgun that is at the bottom but it looks like a helluva time at the range.
Wondering that myself. Looks crude, but potentially fun.
Hey, anyone recognize that Drum Magazine gun on the bottom?
I can’t remember the official name, but I believe it’s often referred to as a “street sweeper”. I also seem to remember the anti’s made a huge fuss over that particular one and basically banned it.
Your memory is about right. There were two brands of basically the same thing, and I believe the later of the two was actually named street sweeper either as a maker or a model. I do remember that they were a little unwieldy having to wind the drum all the time, and the frame cracking between the drum and trigger guard area. I think it was generally in the same spot that it would crack too on the right hand side. Other than that, I don’t remember much about them. Forgot to add, they were made in South Africa of all places.
Stryker. And the drum is a cylinder. It fires like a double action revolver. Trigger pull is worse than a Sigma.
My calendar may be off by a few months. Is it April 1st??
For city leaders: blaming the gun is camouflage. People won’t focus on the fact that their leaders aren’t doing their job.
If it is the fun, then the community and their leaders don’t have to look at themselves.
Anti Second Amendment groups have always known that rifles aren’t used in many crimes. Going after military looking semiautomatic rifles was part of a strategy to ban the least lethal in use firearms so they could make the argument that we needed more bans until no firearm was legal.
By the way drug legalizers are no more realistic about the cause of violence than gun grabbers. Crime in America is caused by the social chaos in the inner city and not guns or drugs. Until we fix the sociology we will not fix the crime problem. A coalition of Progressives and so-called Libertarians is moving the country to look more like Chiraq then Scarsdale.
Individual rights don’t rely on crime rates… except in the minds of statists.
Sure, because what Baghdad needed in 2006 was…the Bill of Rights?
If people can’t control themselves, then they need others to control them. When a society reaches a certain level of breakdown, then “rights” are a really silly discussion.
OMG, did you really type that?!? I have news for you, individuals rights are unalienable to the individual. If society breaks down to the point that our government can no longer be concerned with rights (its primary mission and reason for existence, BTW) then that government is no longer legitimate. Apparently, you do not believe in the very ideas upon which this nation was founded. My individual rights exist independently of any government or society.
As I stated, “… except in the minds of statists.”
@John in Ohio: I sure did. If you have a case for how the BoR would have made Baghdad better in 2006, then I’m all ears.
@John M.: You introduced Baghdad when the subject was our nation. I don’t give a rat’s ass about Baghdad but I do care about our nation. You appear to assert that our government is within its privilege to piss on our individual rights. I am asserting that, no, our legitimate government does not have that privilege.
If people can’t control themselves, then they need others to control them. When a society reaches a certain level of breakdown, then “rights” are a really silly discussion.
Do you stand behind your statement for the government against the People of this nation? If so then we have nothing further to discuss as you are the enemy.
@John in Ohio: My apologies, I didn’t realize that you only think Americans have inalienable rights. Most believers in human rights I meet seem to think they apply to all people in all places at all times.
So, how about Watts ’65 or LA ’92 or Ferguson ’14, then? What help is the Bill of Rights in the middle of a riot? If rioters are the “People” in question, then you’d better believe that I’m pulling for their government (or someone acting like a government) to restore order.
And if you’re looking for converts, you might do well to try techniques other than calling people statists and storming off.
Non Sequitur
When dealing with people like “john m” I’m reminded of the line from an old song by Don McLean: “they were not listening, they are not listening still, perhaps they never will”.
@Charlie LIma: Just because you disagree with me doesn’t mean I’m not listening. I’m actually all ears.
Well It only took them a year to write about what everyone here already knew.
This kind of an article proves that our mainsrteam media sources in this country have become utterly worthless puppets. I would say that we (TTAG, TFB, etc readers) have long known this, however this is some concrete proof that we were not the “crazy, homicidal, conspiracy theorist, gun maniacs” that they try to make gun owners out to be.
I also think we need to stay on top of the handgun issue though.
You won’t fix the sociology. They’ll keep hitting on something (assault weapons, mag limits, psychological profiling, etc) until it really sticks.
They just follow the process that Hitler’s propaganda minister spoke of : “a lie told the same way often enough will become accepted as the truth”. Oh, and by the way, the term “assault weapon” is NAZI terminology. It was Hitler that named the new NAZI combat weapon the “Sturmgewer44 – Storm rifle, as in storming (assaulting) the castle.
Except it was “assault RIFLE” not weapon. Assault rifle is a legitimate military term to describe select-fire intermediate caliber rifles.
“Assault weapon” is the terminology people keep mixing up with assault rifles that Josh Sugarmann of the VPC came up with. Looks like he did his job.
When I read the title of this post, I expected to read how the New York Times finally acknowledged that military style semi-automatic rifles are not assault weapons. I should have known better.
+1. Guess that’s the “other” “Assault weapons myth” and it won’t be “admitted” any time soon.
I have said it other places and I’ll say it here, this is simply the anti’s regrouping. I saw this shift coming after after UBC failed on a federal level and I saw a couple of articles blaming the AWB being brought up for causing people to be against all the proposed legislation including the UBC. They began backing away from an AWB then to focus more on UBC. Now they are simply trying to get every one back on the same page, so people are not wasting effort on something the anti’s now know for sure is a dead issue (at least federally). Even Shannon Watts is saying how MDA even though they would still like to get a new AWB passed they are officially abandoning the issue to focus on UBC.
http://www.propublica.org/article/why-gun-control-groups-have-moved-away-from-an-assault-weapons-ban
This is why all of a sudden you have started seeing a bunch of articles in the past week finally admitting an AWB won’t accomplish anything, they need every one pushing in the same direction. It’s like the late 80’s again when all the anti’s when from really pushing handgun bans to pushing the assault weapon bans, Now they are going from AWBs to universal background checks.
I couldn’t agree more, they are just changing tactics because they would look like bigger idiots than they are if they kept beating the same old drum. UBC will be the big push as well as Firearms Restraining Orders like we are facing in AB1014 that is sitting on Governor Brown’s desk as I type this. Nicely gets around that pesky 2A issue and allows blanket disarmament with just a little bit of work.
The handgun ban was a loser 30 years ago, it would be even a bigger loser today with so many more states being shall issue, I doubt they will go down that road. The next wave is coming, be prepared for it, be ready to write checks, volunteer, educate and fight. Since I am from California, I will use a lame surfing metaphor. The wave will never end, we just have to continually keep paddling, alert and looking for the next set.
I second the voices here that say this marks a shift in strategy by the antis. The ’94 AWB had two real porposes. The first was to attack and ban a (at the time) little used category of firearms, the modern sporting rifle, also known as “assault weapons”. This would get the general public used to the idea of the government banning certain classes of firearms. The second was to use the failure (and they knew it would be) of the AWB to affect crime to call for tighter bans on handguns and semi automatic rifles of all kinds.
They would basically follow the battle plan carried out in Great Britain. Except here in the States, the plan stalled out at the national level. Despite a constant drumbeat for a national handgun ban, nothing happened. The AWB sunseted in 2004 and between then and 2012, the primary target of the antis, the AR pattern rifle, became the most popular rifle in America. And somehow they failed to notice and failed to adjust.
While America moved back toward a pro gun attitude, with district and Supreme Court rulings affirming the Second Amendment’s edict of the right to bear arms as an individual right, the antis went right on banging the Assault Weapon Ban drum to a public that was largely ignoring them.
The failure of the Expanded Background Check Bill in the Democrat controlled Senate after Sandy Hook left them shocked and bewildered. They’ve been back on their heels for the past two years, despite some state level victories. They’ve been frustrated that the country as a whole is shifting away from the anti gun stance, and they are terrified that the last bastions of gun control will eventually be overcome by the country at large. They are finally realizing that while they were throwing thier full effort at “assault weapons”, handguns have been quietly been made completely legal (at least in theory) everywhere in the US. Expect to see more of this dismissing ” assault weapons ” as a threat and a shift towards a vilification of hand guns and a call for a national registration.
+1
“Great minds run on the same tracks”. Very much the same conclusions I (and others) expressed above.
If the anti-2 A. bunch want to shift from “Ban the assault weapons” (a statistically unjustifiable move from a crime prevention view, substantiated by a 10 year trial proving its failure) back to attacking handguns, a category of firearm with rapidly growing popularity (with over 9 Million CCWs issued), they will have substituted another uphill fight over a path they have followed in the past, with little to show for it, and with even less hope for any success under current circumstances.
The opinions expressed in this venue, that their emphasis will shift to an all-out drive to secure “universal background checks” with under-the-table “universal registration” seem to be the most accurate predictions of the next round in the fight for the 2nd A.
I am not sure about the Anti’s didn’t see the change happening they just underestimated how fast it was changing. I think they did, they were just desperately hoping they could still change the turning tide of public opinion on “assault weapons”. Newtown was their last stand on the issue. There was major political push in the first month, but it soon took a back seat to universal background checks. Now according to a couple of articles I have read, supposedly some white house officials claim it was to force us to negotiate an acceptance of universal background checks. While I don’t fully buy that excuse, they did politically back off it relatively fast indicating that it was not a complete shock that there was not support for it.
Personally I suspect that they thought the universal background checks were in the bag and they thought they might still get their “assault weapons” ban. After that first month it became apparent that the idea of an AWB was officially dead, and decided they could could use it as a token of their willingness to compromise through the threat of it. If they did not see that things had been changing, they would been fighting extremely hard all the way to the vote for a new AWB, instead of dropping the push for it as fast they did. On the other hand I don’t believe their claim that it was originally just a throw away provision to get the UBC which is what they really wanted, because if they truely thought getting UBC was going to be that hard than it was quite clear that an AWB would never happen, and the threat of it would be useless for getting the other side to compromise and if any thing make them less likely to be willing to compromise. It’s like a car dealer starting negotiations of the price of a ford F-150 $50,000 over MSRP, you are just going to ignore him and walk away.
I am not impressed with this change of tactics. The anti’s have failed because of SCOTUS decisions. Now they are attacking the true cause of crime but I am sure the approach will be the same. Just as they want to confiscate all guns they will determine that no one is mentally qualified to own a firearm except fot the rich and powerful.
Statements such as this one drive me up the wall. Handguns, like any other weapon, have a zero percent chance of killing anyone. We do not live in a magical realm where objects have motives and the power to act on their own. I know it’s a well worn chestnut at this point, but it’s the people who make the decision to kill, not the object, and there are plenty of options available.
Bet Nick lost his job at the Times.
How about focusing on the real problem.
The real problem of these murders and violent crime is not handguns, its inner city poverty and drug addiction. If you fight poverty and addiction problems, you’ll eliminate the vast majority of gun crime.
If you increase mental health awareness and have more treatment available(other then putting them on medication), you’ll reduce amount of mass shootings.
Going after guns is what a lazy pseudo liberal does who still needs people to feel sorry for, to booster their ego. a true liberal go’s after the root of the problem, poverty and mental heath.
This is just a Canadian gun owners perspective,
Keep this up NYT and Shannon might have to go out and get a real job
does anyone remember the thousands or perhaps hundred of thousands of de-activated foriegn sub machine gun kits for sale to anyone by mail with no restrictions or records ? for last 25 or so years were widely available with ads in places like shotgun news and similar publications seem to have pretty much dried up now ,, ,,cut receivers ect to deactivate or no receivers on some , so easy to restore for a good welder or there were ads for unfinished receivers in publications or some with decals of cut outs and grooves to make receivers some complete receivers also advertised , these were all sold it seems and gone mostly now ,,where did they go ? as a fed liscensed FFL selling at gunshows a lot and home shop .i never once saw or heard of anyone buying one or restoring one .. and i talked to a lot of people . my guess they were snapped up,by gangs mostley and are now activated in the ghettos and barios in large cities ,,,well they went someplace !!! probaly why police are leary to enter these places ??? and yet this giant sale was so obvious and no one mentioned or complained , and atf people never bothererd any of the sellers as far as we know .this should have given the anti gun people hemoroids!!! but no one spoke up .there must be a lot,of activated
unregeristed sub machine guns somewhere out there !!! heaven be praised !!!!! lol
Collectors and builders bought them all up visit http://www.theakforum.net you will see where the kits ended up. Gang bangers don’t wanna take time to build their illegal automatics usually.
I hope someone forwarded this article to the CA state legislature. If we could just get even part of their faces out of their ass would be great. Trying to explain to a first time gun buyer why putting your thumb through a stock will land you in prison is mind boggling for everyone.
The gun control groups are just going back to the basics of 1968 through about 1986 in that hand guns are now the bogey man along with tighter ownership restrictions.
Doesn’t the anti crowd understand that UBCs are most likely going to increase CCW licenses since many states waive waiting periods and in some place NICS with a license? Not messing with waiting periods was one of the original reasons I decided to get my CWP.
Looks to me like they are changing strategies and are gearing up to attack handgun ownership instead of long gun ownership much in the same way England started with banning handguns and later long guns.
Actually you have it mixed up. England banned semi-auto’s and pump-actions in 1986. Handguns were banned in 1997.
I agree. This isn’t an admission of defeat but a call for a change in tactics. From the reading, it looks like they are going to go after handguns as well as keep up the efforts on limiting ownership wherever they can find a judge to look the other way.
Keep vigilant!
Another take by Don Surber:
http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2014/09/do-democrats-care-about-dead-black-men.html
All very true, but where’s the proof reader. An article that starts out with “For more then…” rather than “For more than…” can’t help but suggest the writer was sloppy and maybe some of the facts aren’t so good either. It’s any easy mistake to make, since spell-check won’t catch it, but to be taken seriously, journalists need proof readers.
TTAG can’t even get facts right in it’s own article!!
Conflating “Assault Weapons” (a made-up term) with “Assault Rifles” (a real term – referring to full-auto battle rifles).
FAIL.
Comments are closed.