I have been a quiet, but generous (for my means) supporter of Mr. Obama during his campaign. I really don't do the whole "social networking" thing. I have never agreed with with all of his positions, but even when I disagreed, they seemed to be based more on evidence, and less on emotion; more on facts than popular opinion (gas tax repeal anyone?). Today Mr. Holder made comments in public that violated this tradition of fact based policy. A departure that has finally motivated me to break my silence.

Despite treating most of the constitution as nothing more than annoyance, the one amendment the Bush administration did manage to respect was the second. Allowing the "Assault Weapons" ban to expire was one of the few cracks of light in eight years of gloom.

Now we hear Mr. Holder speaking (presumably for the administration) about reinstating this stinker of a law.

A law that was:

Ill-conceived: Banning weapons based primarily on purely cosmetic considerations may appeal emotionally to some, yet doesn't have much impact on crime. Example: In spite of the fact that bayoneting is unheard of as a means of murder or assualt; existence of a bayonet lug on a rifle was part of the formula used to ban them.

Ineffective: The U.S. Department of Justice conducted two studies of the consequences of the 1994 assault weapons ban. In 1999, Bill Clinton's Justice Department looked exhaustively at the ban's effects. It concluded that "the public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated." In 2001, a second Justice Department review similarly found no evidence that the ban had a statistically significant effect on violent crime. A congressionally mandated study by the Urban Institute reached comparable conclusions.

Ultimately unpopular: The Clinton administration, and Democratic congress's support of the "Assault Weapon" ban was a deciding factor in the Republican's gains in congress in 1994, and had it not been for this legislation Al Gore would have been president for the last 8 years. Imagine what a different world we would be living in if that were the case. How many soldiers have died in the hell-hole that is Iraq so that Democrats could claim to have "done something" (that actually did nothing) about evil guns?

I'm not a rich man. In fact I lost my job in March, and was unemployed until nearly election day....still I managed to donate nearly a thousand dollars to Mr. Obama's campaign efforts over the spring and summer. Public information is available that can be verified by those who doubt this claim, but you'll just have to take my word about the week I gave up meat so that I could donate $25.

I had thought that Democrats had learned their lesson in the 90's, and that this money wouldn't be wasted. Please don't waste the opportunity to do REAL good by creating feel-good-do-nothing laws aimed at influencing the behavior of lawbreakers. If you re-enact the Clinton era gun legislation, you will probably be as sucessful enacting the universal health care we so desperatly need. This past year, we had plenty of opportunity to choose Clinton Mk-II policies. Great numbers of us rejected that choice.

Mr. Obama has found experts to advise him on financial matters. Experts on diplomacy to advise him on foreign policy. Experts on unions and industry to advise him on labor matters. Please Mr. Obama, find someone that knows the difference between a semi-automatic, and a machine gun, someone who knows that there is no such thing as a "cop killer bullet", That making a gun's stock out of black plastic instead of figured walnut does nothing to make it more dangerous.....find several such people, and please listen to thier advice on this matter on which you (or at least Mr. Holder speaking for you) don't seem to be very well informed.