Hands off my "assault weapons," Mr. President.
I get it. A lot of people are uncomfortable with guns. A lot of
people think the world would be better off without guns. Lots of folks
aren't familiar with guns and wouldn't know a "machine gun" from a
"semiautomatic." And finally, lots of folks don't care to find out --
they think guns are scary and that they hurt people (and maybe they have a loved one was injured or killed by a gun).
Despite my gun collection, I agree that it would be a nicer world if nobody had guns. Unfortunately, that's simply not the reality we live in. The genie's left the bottle: the horse has long since left the barn. Guns are prolific in our society and no amount of law will reverse that.
Given the reality we live in, I've chosen to get training and to keep a number of firearms in my home. In the very unlikely event that some terrible day comes, I will be prepared to defend my family (or hunt to eat). I respect the views of others who choose another path...but I cannot accept those who, out of their own fears and/or ignorance, would disarm me or my family.
I was disappointed to read of President Obama's push to reintroduce the 1994 'assault weapon' ban. It was a really bad idea in 1994, and it's a really bad idea today. Those who support the idea: do you realize that you're criminalizing rifes which are fundamentally IDENTICAL to other, perfectly legal rifles? Do you realize that "machine guns" are already illegal (and have been since the 40's)? Do you realize that so-called "assault rifles" are in no way more powerful nor mor dangerous than any other rifles...and despite Hollywood's depictions, assault rifles are only ever used in a vanishingly small % of crimes? What's really your motivation here, beyond the usual BS 'saving the children' argument-which-we-use-for-everything?
I wonder how many TPM readers support this latest round of disarming-the-populace (and what their reasons are)?
Despite my gun collection, I agree that it would be a nicer world if nobody had guns. Unfortunately, that's simply not the reality we live in. The genie's left the bottle: the horse has long since left the barn. Guns are prolific in our society and no amount of law will reverse that.
Given the reality we live in, I've chosen to get training and to keep a number of firearms in my home. In the very unlikely event that some terrible day comes, I will be prepared to defend my family (or hunt to eat). I respect the views of others who choose another path...but I cannot accept those who, out of their own fears and/or ignorance, would disarm me or my family.
I was disappointed to read of President Obama's push to reintroduce the 1994 'assault weapon' ban. It was a really bad idea in 1994, and it's a really bad idea today. Those who support the idea: do you realize that you're criminalizing rifes which are fundamentally IDENTICAL to other, perfectly legal rifles? Do you realize that "machine guns" are already illegal (and have been since the 40's)? Do you realize that so-called "assault rifles" are in no way more powerful nor mor dangerous than any other rifles...and despite Hollywood's depictions, assault rifles are only ever used in a vanishingly small % of crimes? What's really your motivation here, beyond the usual BS 'saving the children' argument-which-we-use-for-everything?
I wonder how many TPM readers support this latest round of disarming-the-populace (and what their reasons are)?
Advertisement
Just to be clear nobody is going to take your assault weapon away. The ban, should it even happen, like the previous one means you cannot buy one. Not being a gun owner I have no dog in this fight, but if I had my druthers I wish the Dems would leave this hot button issue alone. Yes close the gun show loop holes, but that's about it.
February 27, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You realize there is no such thing as a gun show loophole right? They are refering to the fact that a private person can sell a gun at a gunshow the same as he can sell it in the paper, or at a 7/11 parking lot, or out of his home. There is nothing special to being at a gun show other than more potential customers. This is simply an attempt to require al guns to be sold through/transferred through licensed dealers, with some fee required. That way the fee can be raised to the point it can't be paid. It also provides a complete gun registration system to facilitate confiscation. We aren't falling for this.
February 27, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, I believe that they're not yet trying to take my rifles away...they simply (!) want me to be unable to purchase more, or give them away. I guess I'm supposed to not be angry about that fact, and just thank my lucky stars that the politicians are generous enough to allow me to keep them.
For a taste of things to come, consider California, where you can't even pass down a grandfathered "assault rifle" as part of an estate -- it must be handed in to the sheriff when the owner dies to be destroyed.
This is an asinine law (read: its harm massively outweighs its benefit) and is also moronic politics: you want an issue which will split Obama supporters? Here ya go...
February 27, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said I think they should leave this one alone.
February 27, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's a great idea! It should ensure the Republicans retake the House and Senate in 2010, much like it did in 94.
Other than the political bright side, it is of course idiotic to think that bad guys who break laws will obey this one, or that a gun with a pistol grip is more dangerous than one with a thumbhole stock. It was/is a stupid law crafted by morons who know nothing about guns.
February 27, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It should ensure the Republicans retake the House and Senate in 2010, much like it did in 94"
Actually, it wouldn't. Republicans ALREADY believed that about Obama prior to November and still won. In fact, Republicans have screwed themselves on opposing over most anything Obama might want to do when they accused him of being everything from a socialist to a terrorist, and yet he still was overwhelmingly elected.
I agree with the suggestion that it's the AMMO that needs to be registered. Every bullet should be marked with a serial number when manufactured so that tracing is easy. This would be quite cumbersome for criminals to defeat. It's the bullets after all that do the damage and that remain as evidence at crime scenes, not the guns.
February 28, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am a liberal, in fact to the far left, who is all in favor of defending the 2nd amendment.
Any time any of our Constitutional Rights are limited it can be used as justification all of our other rights.
I am not a gun owner and in fact I don't like guns one bit...BUT...it is our right to own them if we choose to and we should be able to.
February 27, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am having a bad typing night...
s/b
Any time any of our Constitutional Rights are limited it can be used as justification to limit all of our other rights.
February 27, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink