The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

Just a random thought I had about all this. Politicians come out and say, "we are going to ban certain guns!" So everyone out there goes and buys everything they can get their hands on. Including wack jobs that might have ill intent. So by the possible ban, they have put more guns on the street then had they not said anything at all. It seems almost counter productive.
 
scooter2525 said:
Just a random thought I had about all this. Politicians come out and say, "we are going to ban certain guns!" So everyone out there goes and buys everything they can get their hands on. Including wack jobs that might have ill intent. So by the possible ban, they have put more guns on the street then had they not said anything at all. It seems almost counter productive.
Click to expand...

Or exactly what they want....
 
Here's a well thought out editorial in a paper from Sen Feinstein's own stomping grounds that disagrees with her AWB proposal:

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/Reviving-a-gun-law-that-didn-t-work-4125551.php

On Friday, a heavily armed young man walked into a Connecticut elementary school and murdered 20 first-graders and six adults before he killed himself. Even in a country inured to gun violence, this crime is too heinous to contemplate.

Now the question is: Does Washington pass a bad law just to do something, anything, even something that doesn't enhance public safety?

I write this as a former assault-weapons ban supporter, who observed that the 1994 federal assault-weapons ban, which expired in 2004, didn't reduce gun violence in America. Nor, apparently, did Connecticut's assault-weapons ban, passed in 1993 and still in force.
Click to expand...
 
Hacker15e said:
Here's the link. It is a firearms forum (although one called 'the High Road', whose intent is to foster more intelligent and thoughtful discussion), so if you are offended by that kind of stuff here is fair warning:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=8574685
Click to expand...
My uncle frequents DU. I'll have to see if he's a participant in this thread. He's a peace-loving, former hippie & poet with a cabin he built on his own property in the woods so he could go there to write & be Thoreau-like. Awesome guy. But very far left. :)

Oops! I got confused and read too fast. Link is not to DU, but a different forum. (Link doesn't work for me, anyway.)
 
From everything I've seen on Sen Feinstein's new AWB, it would have absolutely no impact on stopping a crime exactly like the shootings at Sandy Hook. Just like the first AWB had no impact on gun crime.

Let's just assume for a moment that Feinstein's bill has already passed and a new AWB begins on 3 Jan. On 3 Jan, a man who already owned a semi-automatic AK-47 (or WASR-10 for those actually capable of distinguishing between functions and features of different kinds of firearms) with high-capacity magazines is killed by his son, who is distraught over...whatever. Son now takes the rifle to his old school because he thinks his 3rd grade teacher is to blame and kills any number of people. Has the shooter broken any part of Feinstein's new law? Has any part of the new law deterred or slowed this crime in any way?

I am beyond tired of hearing people say, "But we've got to do SOMETHING!" To the JC members out there that feel this way, good for you. Do something. But for the love of Jeebus, do something productive, constructive, creative...something that actually contributes. Contributing is not throwing support behind a law that will have the same effect on gun crime as a law that bans walking backwards after dark. Another AWB will do NOTHING to stop this same exact crime from happening the day after, or even 50 years after, it is implemented.

I half-heartedly hope Feinstein gets her way. The gun grabbers will claim victory with a hollow bill, the value of my weapons goes through the roof, and capitalism and personal liberty prevail.

Now that I've read what I just typed, an interesting thought: Perhaps things like the previous AWB are a factor in this spate of middle to upper-middle-class, young shooters? The only measurable effect of the last AWB was a noticeable increase in the price of both pre-ban and ban-compliant AR-15's, WASR-10's, and magazines. This, in turn, makes them harder to purchase for the lower income segments of our population, and something of a notoriety item for those who are better off. As these higher-income people tend to live in suburbia, the 1994 AWB effectively flooded suburban America with so-called "assault weapons" which lacked scary features like bayonet lugs and flash hiders but were functionally identical to their pre-ban cousins. I think this falls right into the middle of the "possible" category.

In all this gun control talk, people never stop to think about unintended consequences. Gun control laws are like messing with DNA. You have an idea of the desired outcome, but you can't anticipate every side effect.
 
Man, is it ever an interesting gun control orgy taking place in the media right now. It will be interesting to see what this landscape looks like in January.
 
Went to a local gun shop today. Last week their inventory was full. They are now sold out of Smith & Wesson AR-15's and only have a few Bushmasters left. They also have no mags available because they sold out yesterday. While there(15 minutes), three people came in to stock up on magazines and rounds including one woman looking for 60 round magazines. I guess one positive here is that the economy is being stimulated.
 
exneophyte said:
Went to a local gun shop today. Last week their inventory was full. They are now sold out of Smith & Wesson AR-15's and only have a few Bushmasters left. They also have no mags available because they sold out yesterday. While there(15 minutes), three people came in to stock up on magazines and rounds including one woman looking for 60 round magazines. I guess one positive here is that the economy is being stimulated.
Click to expand...

Oh well hell, if it's stimulating the economy then I say we should blast some more people.
 
VP Biden -- the man who almost single-handedly worked through the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban -- is in charge of the committee to "study" what can be done to curb "gun violence" (their term, not mine -- since a gun has never taken any violent action without the aid of a human being that I'm aware of).

Gee, I wonder what his committee will recommend?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top