Gun Controls and Misconceptions…

Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008

I found this during my looking around this morning. It interests me that this
furor about a possible re-institution of the assault weapons ban seems to be
swirling after Nov. 4th, but we heard nothing like the current outrage in June
and July when this was authored by Republicans, and introduced to the
appropriate congressional sub-committee. What’s worse, this re-authorizes the
the vague language of the original, and is similar to the wording set forth in
the NJ Attorney General’s guidelines for the enforcement of this states own ban.

In my own opinion, restricting armor defeating ammo types and calibers might
make sense. Let’s be honest, who needs a FN 5.7 or a .50 BMG Barrett except the
military? If nothing else, the price of the ammo alone makes it impractical for
any kind of sporting, and your average calibers are much better for defense
applications. Outlawing 100 round drum magazines might make sense, because one
doesn’t reasonably hunt deer OR target shoot with 100 continuously fed rounds I
would argue that you don’t effectively defend your home that way either (though
some “Soldier of Fortune” types might disagree…). Mandating that manufacturers
take specific measures to prevent easily transforming a semi auto into a full
auto would make sense to me, because then you would prosecute individuals who
defeat those safeguards on a much more specific basis of what IS dangerous,
rather than what APPEARS to be. You would prosecute manufacturers who don’t meet
a set of specific standards based in the interest of professional responsibility
and public safety, rather than on an arbitrary list of cosmetic features.

A vague blanket like this one just leaves the individual law enforcement
officer, and subsequently the larger legal system open to endlessly litigate and
interpret a law that is too broad. I may not agree with the NRA’s seemingly knee
jerk reactionism and implied ethos of “gimme my guns or else”, but this
legislation is irresponsible for everyone, because it doesn’t set out to resolve
anything, but to give the appearance that it might (ie. the study it mandates to
be performed by the AG as regards the bill’s supposed impact on crime.)

Don’t be afraid of Obama’s supposed anti-gun stance, but be afraid of this
bill, because it looks like these Republicans were looking to promote their own
anti-gun agenda well before anyone knew the election’s outcome!

This entry was posted in Guns. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Gun Controls and Misconceptions…

  1. Marlin says:

    Honestly – the fact it was drafted by Republicans really does nothing to support your argument – unless your argument is that the Messiah, and the Democrats that will be in control of 2/3 of our Government – really aren’t that big a threat to our liberties.

    Shays doesn’t even have a job anymore, and the rest of the RINO’s who authored this crap – Kirk, Castle, and Ferguson – all represent blue states and primarily blue districts. Drafting a bill in June of 2008 to re-institute the gun ban is nothing more than political self-preservation. The writing has been on the wall since 2006. Bush isn’t a Conservative, McCain isn’t a Conservative – the Republicans stood to lose big in the last election because they completely abandoned their base and its ideals.

    I’m sick and tired of gun owners and the NRA being mocked for standing up to defend the 2nd Amendment. History has shown that gun control does not work, all it does is lay the groundwork for true tyranny. The problem is that law enforcement at every level has failed in regard to gun crime, and the politicians have facilitated that failure by imposing archaic restrictions on what the GOOD GUYS can own.

    The lifting of the DC gun ban is a perfect example of acknowledging the reality of a situation. The bad guys have guns, they’ll use them on anyone, but chances are that they will be less likely to do so if they think that anyone – not just the Police – can shoot back!

    So yes, 4 “Republicans” drafted a purposely vague assault weapon’s ban. The reason there is a furor is because it will happily sail through the Democrat Senate and across Obama’s desk completely unopposed on the way to becoming a shining example of bipartisanship.

    Obama has a REAL anti-gun record.
    Barack Obama on Gun Control
    Barack Obama on Gun Control

    Just in case decided to show its blue face…
    Factcheck And Brady Campaign Share Same Sugar Daddy

    The only thing that is ‘supposed’ here is Obama’s pro-gun stance, and that those 4 jerks have anything to do with the true Conservative base of the Republican party that has been wholly ignored for the past 8 years.

  2. iq666 says:

    My point wasn’t specifically to give an “AH-HA!” regarding the Republican authorship of this bill, though it did surprise me a bunch. The authorship didn’t come from a group of commie-pinko-leftie-anti-gun Dems. In pointing out that they were Republican I intended to illustrate that surprise. While many are flocking to their local gun stores, fearing an infringement of their rights, they don’t have to look too far past the center (in either direction) to find where it may come from.

    My overall intention in the post above is two sided: the first is to point out that this poorly written bill, with it’s broad language and a basis in a vague misconception about what constitutes an “assault” weapon, is already being considered. It has been for several months. We don’t have to wait for it to descend from the far left. Regardless of who “holds the power” now or in the future my point was more that despite one’s stance on the specifics of gun control, THIS BILL IS AWFUL!

    Ignoring it’s subject, (and it’s controversy) this is a rather vague for a law, and seemingly serves no wider purpose in preventing, fixing, or eliminating a specific situation or hazard. It is a broad brush open to far too wide an interpretation, and I feel it is offered only as window dressing. I believe this specific bill promises to bog down the legal system when it will force the courts to interpret the finer points on it’s own.

    The second intention flows from the first, as I have offered examples of what I feel would make for a few reasonable points in a more effective legislation. Any law that precludes something based on appearance rather than to address a specific issue is probably in the interest of pandering to the ignorant (and I use this word in it’s truest sense, not to mean stupid, but one who is uneducated or unaware) for the sake of blind support. The points I made at least address a specific set of issues that I think make more sense from a practical and legal standpoint, and would be fodder for a substantive argument on that basis before legislation, rather than lend to pointless left-right posturing.

    I am a gun owner, and I cherish that right. While I don’t agree with the broad stance of the NRA and it’s politics for my own reasons, I think that we would agree that the bill above is worthless, for what may be some of the same and some disparate reasons to be sure. (For the record, I didn’t mock gun owners. While I implied that their stance is seemingly to have it all at all costs, I didn’t denigrate the NRA either.)

    I don’t see how law enforcement can “fail” in regard to gun crime when one cries foul in putting any type of gun laws on the books. You have to have a law before a cop can enforce it, or a prosecutor can charge for it. If we want to address some of the issues surrounding guns and crime, my argument is to leave some sharper and more precise tools in the proverbial toolbox than the one offered in this bill. I think the key is then to make sure all those tools stay sharp, and are used for the “right job”, in order to preserve one’s overall second amendment rights.

  3. Marlin says:

    I absolutely support the broad stance of the NRA as they need to fire a wide salvo every time the 2nd amendment is assaulted. We haven’t gotten any MORE rights since the Constitution was ratified, it has been whittled away bit by bit since day one. The NRA won’t succeed in NO gun control just as much as this government wouldn’t survive TOTAL gun control. The fight must be taken to the politicians who are hell bent on depriving the citizenry of their rights – plain and simple. The NRA might seem like a bunch of knee-jerk types, but I ask you – who else is watching out for our rights better than they are?

    As for how law enforcement fails, it fails all the time. It failed when the DC gun ban was in effect and gun crime was through the roof. I wouldn’t completely blame the plain-clothed officer on the beat – but from the beat cop on up, the ball has consistently been dropped. That is why the politicians can get away with proposing a junk bill like this. Every shooting that involves illegally obtained guns is a failure in law enforcement. Someone wasn’t paying attention, someone wasn’t enforcing the laws on the books, and somebody died because of it. We simply cannot allow our politicians to continue to get away with eviscerating our freedoms. They need to be called on it at every turn.

    There ARE laws on the books, and not enough is being done to support them. This is why I am fervently against MORE control and MORE law. Nitpicking who gets what bullet and who doesn’t is simply semantics… just a more eloquent way to avoid solving a problem. More Government never solved a damned thing except for that pesky problem called freedom.

    This Socialist crap makes me want to puke.

  4. iq666 says:

    A fair point can be made about compromise through polarization. While it is not my choice, there are many who feel that, in broad terms, by pushing as far as possible against resistance they are likely to see a tolerable compromise in the middle. If you argue that is the NRA’s intention, then so be it, but it is not the way I would choose to fight the battle.

    As far as holding irresponsible politicians to account for their ill-conceived bills, and in so doing preventing an erosion of one’s rights, I believe that was a large part of my point with reference to the specific resolution. Placing the shortcomings of current policy enforcement aside for a moment, It would seem we agree that this is a poor piece of legislation, and the authors have erred in offering it.

    Concerning the problems related to the wider issue of gun violence, I would ask what solutions you might present if we are going to expand the conversation beyond the initial bill I was discussing. If you feel there are enough laws on the books already, might you cite some, and explain how you feel they are poorly enforced? I feel it may help me understand your larger point if you were to outline some of the specific instances that you feel support it. In so doing, I feel you would allow for a much more civil discourse than by simply and erroneously dismissing my statements as some sort of “socialist” dogma.

  5. Marlin says:

    “No, don’t take MY gun, but here – you can take these, it makes more sense.” Sounds a lot like land for peace to me, how’s that working out?

    The fact is that people are still getting shot and killed every day by illegal handguns. That the weapon made it as far as it did is a failure of law enforcement and the system, period – end of story. More laws to make the guns MORE illegal simply won’t matter when it has been proven time and again that an armed populace is a SAFE populace.

    Lastly, if calling gun control Socialist, Marxist, Totalitarian, Authoritarian, etc… offends my readers feelings, then so be it. The key to implementing any of these repeatedly failed ideologies is stripping the people of the ability to defend themselves from the State. I’d rather be an armed Conspiracy theorist as I’m sure I’ll be called – than disarmed and forced to suck the tit of big Government. I refuse to give an inch to those who still think that the Government is the solution to everything. I’m not attacking people, I’m attacking ideas that deserve to be attacked and countered, and not be given an inch of slack.

  6. iq666 says:

    I don’t feel personally attacked or offended, however I feel my idea has yet to be effectively met by an opposing viewpoint regarding a solution to the problem of gun violence by means other than legislation. To have my portion of the discussion dismissed as merely vomit-inducing leftist drivel may toe the rhetorical line, but it doesn’t bring anything of substance to the discussion.

    Simply stating that law enforcement has failed, without citing examples of how they have done so, or how performance might improve given current laws, reads like empty bluster as opposed to critical thinking. Providing an idea of how to combat gun violence if an environment absent of gun control laws were to be enacted with the repeal of current legislation (thereby reducing the influence of “Big Government” on our gun rights) might further an interesting counterpoint.

    I have not to this point argued that law abiding citizens do not deserve to have firearms, or to be armed in order to defend themselves. The link to provides some interesting facts in support of an argument I feel we really aren’t having, unless it is was given to imply that keeping the population armed is a facet of a solution that was not expressly stated.

    Feel free to disagree with me without fear that I may take it personally, because I am comfortable with the nature of an academic discourse. To fully engage in the art, however, I think you may have to propose and support your counterpoints more fully.

  7. Marlin says:

    The original point that the bill is flawed, I can stand behind. I’ll go as far as saying it is wrong, and isn’t worthy of being used to wipe my glorious behind.

    I disagree with the proposed solution. It is as pointless as the original bill. Statistics prove (as highlighted by the link in my previous statement) that gun and ammo bans do not work.

    I disagree that the original post was not mocking gun owners or the NRA. Those knee jerk, soldier of fortune, gimme my guns or else types just might agree with me. I apologize that my specific line of rhetoric doesn’t mesh with some, alas – nobody is perfect.

    I disagree that I should not be worried about Obama’s administration and his leftist cohorts as much if not MORE than the 4 “Republicans” who drafted the bill. I’ve successfully provided proof that his record IS something to be feared when it comes to guns, and I’m hoping that in 2 years the 3 remaining Representatives will be sent packing in advance of his departure from office in 2012.

    I ask, is the murder rate in Newark, NJ so high because the actions, and the tools – aren’t illegal enough yet? A gun ban wouldn’t help there either, as its pretty obvious the bad guys are armed, staffed, and funded better than the police. Get more Police on the ground, with better tools, and better intelligence – pair it up with the freedom to conceal and carry a gun – and I can guarantee we would see a dramatic drop in gun crime.

    Did Virginia Tech happen because the system worked? Would banning Glock 19’s have stopped it? Or would a law forcing the states to verify with the federal government that the people buying the guns aren’t registered as NUTS have helped more?

    Maybe if we spent as much time busting people for obtaining and using guns illegally as we did with alcohol and tobacco – it wouldn’t be such an issue. As the link in my previous posts pointed out – the points of view I am arguing against here are inherently flawed.

    There are flaws in the system, there are flaws in law enforcement. These flaws must be identified and rectified in order to provide a comprehensive and effective solution to the problem of gun violence. I have repeatedly proven my point of view, and backed it with facts where necessary.

    I welcome more haughty college speak if it really is necessary, however it will not change my mind, prove me wrong, or revise the fact that the original post was ¾ full of vomit inducing leftist drivel.

  8. JD says:

    geeze.. that guy talks like a bad college philosophy book, lol

  9. iq666 says:

    So let me see if I am understanding your various points so we are both clear.

    -We agree that the legislation being considered currently is awful.
    -You disagree with the points that I suggest might make a better legislation because you feel that any laws restricting firearms related materiel (ie. guns, ammo, magazines, ease of tampering, etc) are statistically ineffective.
    -The solutions you in turn seem to be suggesting are: an overall increase in police force size, some means for those officers to gather more and better intelligence regarding gun crime, an increase in advocacy for arming the private citizen, and enacting federal legislation that would mandate full mental health checks for gun buyers (and seemingly enacting the creation of a federal database of those records to go with it).

    If we had spent less time on the obtuse political invective, and a little more to state the points of our proposed solutions, we may have both avoided a headache.

    My point here has never been to change anyone’s mind or prove anyone wrong, but to engage in a discussion in which we explain our position without resorting to quoting any party line, or dismissing ideas out of hand because they aren’t our own. I believe the wider issue of gun control could only benefit from such conversation, because it fosters a deeper understanding of the topic than what either side of the issue may put in a pamphlet.

    Admittedly, I quipped about the stereotypes associated with the far right, and made the mistake of mentioning the president elect. I stated that this overall issue may be much closer to the political “center” than most might think by pointing out the bill’s authorship. I did not take into account that these statements would overshadow my larger point about the poor legislation, and possible alternatives. If this thread has taken a different road than I intended, I will take the blame.

    Looking over the past posts, it doesn’t seem likely that an academic tone will prevail, but more that this may devolve into simple posturing, or further into name calling. As such, I will abstain from further comment.

  10. Elmur says:

    Yeah that came out pretty bad

    What it was suppose to say was that there is already plenty of laws on the books, but no one ever enforces anything. People think more laws will make things better when all you really need is more cops catching them and the courts actually putting them behind bars with more than a slap on the wrist.

  11. Marlin says:

    The sale of firearms to permanent residents in Virginia is legal as long as the buyer shows proof of residency. Virginia law also limits purchases of handguns to one every 30 days. Federal law requires a criminal background check for handgun purchases from licensed firearms dealers, and Virginia checks other databases in addition to the federally mandated NICS. A 1968 federal law passed in response to the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., also prohibits those “adjudicated as a mental defective” from buying guns. This exclusion applied to Cho after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment. Because of gaps between federal and Virginia state laws, the state did not report Cho’s legal status to the NICS. Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine addressed this problem on April 30, 2007, by issuing an executive order intended to close those reporting gaps. In August 2007, the Virginia Tech review panel report called for a permanent change in the Code of Virginia to clarify and strengthen the state’s background check requirements. The federal government later passed a law to improve state reporting to the NICS nationwide.

    All you had to do was use Google. No, I wasn’t talking about a massive mandated mental health check and federal database. My first response isn’t to throw bigger government and more money at a problem, which if you’ve read enough of my non-academic writings, any academic minded person would have realized.

    Here, I speak clear and to the point like an average guy. No, my posts generally don’t come off ‘academic’ and to be blunt – I don’t want them to. I speak to the heart of the matter like anyone else would. I don’t need commentary with very haughty language, perfect grammar, and exquisite use of the comma. Nobody wants to read that crap. I haven’t had a single complaint about how I carry myself on this blog – ever – and still I get thousands of hits a month from people reading what I have to say on just about every topic.

    If you don’t like my methods, or how I attack an idea which I disagree with – then don’t comment here. Don’t write me with your ideas. Call me a Conservative. Call me a Republican. Call me whatever the hell you like and I’ll admit to it if it is true. When I use the labels Liberal, Socialist, Marxist, etc – it is because the ideas of the person I’m speaking with closely align with those ideaologies or will lead to those ideologies taking root in our society. It isn’t name calling.

    A true Conservative would not support the measure you proposed as an alternative to an already flawed idea, a Liberal would. A Socialist would. A Marxist would. I sure as hell wouldn’t refer to you as a Libertarian after the bullshit I read.

    If you really want an independent, fair and balanced discussion – don’t start it off by saying “Look what the Republicans did, don’t worry about the Democrat” you would have attacked it from an objective standpoint, and not had to make excuses or finally concede that mentioning “Obama” was a mistake. It was classic spin, and I approached it as such. Next time, make your point, avoid the rhetoric, and who knows – a fruitful discussion of ideas may ensue.

    In closing, lick my balls.

  12. maytag says:

    Just my $.01 (recession, pulling back on my discretionaries):
    The 2nd amendment, think about it. Do you really believe the architects of our legal backbone secured a right of the people (or militia, not getting into that) to bear arms for the purposes of sporting? The entire document is a series of statutes to protect the people at large from federal governance and to enstone the rights of the citizenry. Therefore, the right to bear arms is simply another card in our deck of mechanisms by which to apply our check on federal power. There are the three branches, and there are the people. So, in my opinion the sporting clauses are completely absurd. In fact, forget beyond my opinion; based on the precidents we’ve established in purposing this document throughout history, we can almost certainly deduce that it’s a checking mechanism.

    People say ‘Nobody needs a 50BMG for hunting’, perhaps they’re right. Although, there goes any African or NW big-game hunting (who use similar, even sometimes larger [!] cartridges). Still, perhaps you have a point. What could a citizen possibly need a 50BMG, FN P90, AK-47, or a 100rd mag for, besides as gun-control folks put it ‘killing people’. Well, you see, that’s just it! I want to own a large-calibre rifle, high capacity magazines, and body armor! Why? To kill people.

    Namely, people acting on behalf of a government which has gotten too big for it’s breeches, or folks exercising ‘executive emergency powers’, or for when that day comes where a disillusioned populace is ruling the streets and a military option is called into play. Quite simply, I hold the Constitution in a higher regard than any lawmaker, politician, pundit, or president. With all the millions of loopholes, riders, and lobbyist-fodder bills that have been signed into law, we can always rely on the inherent sanity of our Constitution. Any one who makes a decisive move against the basic tenets of our societal construct, encroaches upon our freedoms or otherwise makes a serious trespass on our way of life as outlined in this document, or marches under the unlawful orders of the aforementioned, will fast earn the ire of my very much legal, very much necessary 50BMG.

    If you think it’s foolhardy to hold this position because of the lack of challenge an armed populace would present to a 21st century military force, I would ask you only to look across the Atlantic, where every day an armed (albeit highly misguided) populace has been providing quite the challenge indeed.

    DISCLAIMER: I am not a lunatic nor do I plan to kill anyone. I’m merely illustrating the intended purpose of the second amendment and why I believe (regardless of your stance on inner-city gun violence, which is another fucking retarded issue) we need to protect it. I have never lost an argument about the intended purpose the 2nd amendment using this stance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *