Good Article On Issue Of "Assault Weapons Ban" - Dodge Diesel - Diesel Truck Resource Forums

Go Back  Dodge Diesel - Diesel Truck Resource Forums > Other / Non Diesel Related > Political Discussion
Reload this Page >

Good Article On Issue Of "Assault Weapons Ban"

Political Discussion Discuss politics here. Complete political forum with a wide range of discussion.

Good Article On Issue Of "Assault Weapons Ban"

Reply

 
 
 
Old 03-05-2018, 03:02 PM
  #1  
Administrator
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Holly Ridge, N.C.
Posts: 8,247
Thanks: 0
Thanked 37 Times in 37 Posts
Good Article On Issue Of "Assault Weapons Ban"

I came across this article from the "National Review" about the 2018 "Assault Weapons Ban" being proposed. The Author of the article was David French. He makes some very good points on the so-called "ban." I thought my fellow DTR Members might like to see this. Here is the article:

----------
John_P
__________________________________________________ ______
National Review
POLITICS & POLICY
It’s Time for Real Talk about the Assault-Weapons ‘Ban’
By DAVID FRENCH
February 27, 2018 5:17 PM

It’s not a ban, and it’s not the answer to mass shootings.
It’s back. In the aftermath of the Parkland, Fla., school massacre, House Democrats are making another attempt at banning so-called assault weapons. A “supermajority” (156 of 193) of House Democrats have signed on, leaving no doubt as to the party’s move left on gun control. The bill, called the “Assault Weapons ban of 2018,” is a non-starter — at least so long as Republicans control the House — but it’s a mistake to simply write off any proposal backed so overwhelmingly by one side of the aisle. This debate isn’t going away.

So let’s deal with he bill on the merits, beginning with taking on its inherently deceptive name. The bill calls for a “ban” on both “semi-automatic assault weapons” and “large capacity magazine feeding devices” (magazines holding more than ten rounds). But then — in the very next paragraphs — it exempts every single weapon and magazine lawfully possessed before the enactment of the law.

In other words, the assault-weapons ban isn’t a ban at all. It would leave tens of millions of guns and magazines on the streets. In fact, nobody actually knows the number. Rifle sales have skyrocketed. Counting rifles made and distributed in the U.S. only (in other words, not counting imports), the number has increased from 1.6 million in 2007 to 4.2 million in 2016. During that time, the AR-15 has been among the most popular rifles sold in the U.S.

In other words, even if the proposed “ban” were enacted, a person who wanted an AR-15 could find an AR-15. A person who wanted a large-capacity magazine could find a large-capacity magazine.

Moreover, the phrase “assault weapons” is also inherently deceptive. The drafters include within the definition not just the scary-looking, military-style rifles such as the AR-15 but also semi-automatic pistols that can “accept a detachable magazine” and have at least one common additional feature such as a threaded barrel. The proposed ban also includes semi-automatic shotguns with, among other things, a pistol grip, a fixed magazine that accepts more than five rounds, or the ability to accept a detachable magazine of any size.

This is the worst kind of gun control. Any measure that preserves the ability of criminals to access guns while restricting the access of law-abiding Americans is a measure that fundamentally impairs the very purpose of the Second Amendment. For the law-abiding, the existing stock of tens (hundreds?) of millions of weapons and magazines would instantly become more expensive. Yet with the slightest premeditation, a criminal could easily circumvent the ban. It’s a simple matter, in fact, to make your own high-capacity magazine.

Moreover, it’s sheer speculation that a ban on so-called assault weapons would reduce mass shootings, reduce gun suicides, or reduce overall gun violence. Rifles are rarely used in “normal” gun crimes (blunt objects and fists kill more people), and you don’t need an AR-15 to kill yourself (rifle suicides are rare). And as ample, grim experience shows, you don’t need an AR-15 to commit a horrific mass killing. America’s worst school shooting — the Virginia Tech massacre — was committed with handguns, and the list of deadly handgun shootings is long and sad.

Mass shooters are among the most committed criminals in the entire United States. They often fantasize about their attacks for years and plan them for months. They can find an AR-15. Yet an AR-15 isn’t an indispensable weapon for a spree killer. They have options.

At best, then, the argument is that making an AR-15 slightly more difficult to obtain won’t make spree killings less common, but it might make spree killings less lethal. Again, that’s more speculation, assuming that the most committed killers 1) can’t get their hands one of the tens of millions of legal weapons still on the streets; and 2) that a man with a semi-automatic pistol isn’t just as deadly as a man with a rifle. Neither assumption is warranted.

In fact, experience with the previous federal assault-weapons ban demonstrates that any benefit gained by decrease in crimes committed with one type of weapon is often offset by increases in crimes committed with other weapons, leaving no net benefit. Here’s the key language from a comprehensive study of the impact of the federal assault-weapons ban:

We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AW [assault weapons] and LCMs [large-capacity magazines].

And that study is based on a world where tens of millions fewer assault magazines and large-capacity magazines were in circulation. The facts on the ground have changed, substantially, since 2004.


But we have to offset the known and undeniable negatives against the entirely speculative positive effect. Millions of law-abiding Americans would find it more difficult to obtain guns and magazines that would match the foreseeable criminal threat. Indeed, the necessity of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines to confront the criminal threat is illustrated by the proposed ban itself, which exempts law-enforcement officers. Police officers need 15 rounds in a pistol to defend themselves, but I don’t need 15 rounds to defend myself? How is that coherent?

An assault-weapons non-ban does NOTHING to address the underlying causes of mass shootings. It does nothing to empower citizens or police to respond to troubled individuals before they pull the trigger, and it does nothing to enhance the ability of citizens to defend themselves once engaged. In fact, it may well put the armed citizen at a meaningful disadvantage. It’s not the answer to mass killings. It’s not even “an” answer. It is, however, an infringement on individual liberty, and it’s one that a majority of American voters will not tolerate.
__________________________________________________ ___________
John_P is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to John_P For This Useful Post:
edwinsmith (03-05-2018)
Old 03-05-2018, 07:55 PM
  #2  
Registered User
 
edwinsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 3,047
Thanked 499 Times in 370 Posts
When sticks are outlawed, only outlaws will have sticks.

Edwin
edwinsmith is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 05:07 PM
  #3  
Administrator
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Holly Ridge, N.C.
Posts: 8,247
Thanks: 0
Thanked 37 Times in 37 Posts
Thanks Edwin!

I remember the bumper sticker we used to see a few years ago that said:

"WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS"

That is right along with what you posted Edwin. It is the truth too, although you can't convince the left-wing "anti-gun" liberals of that!
John_P is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 08:09 PM
  #4  
Registered User
 
j_martin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Isanti, MN
Posts: 4,324
Thanked 131 Times in 99 Posts
Originally Posted by John_P View Post
Thanks Edwin!

I remember the bumper sticker we used to see a few years ago that said:

"WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS"

That is right along with what you posted Edwin. It is the truth too, although you can't convince the left-wing "anti-gun" liberals of that!
When I first got out of the Navy I lived about a block away from the roughest part of South Minneapolis at the time. (38th and Chicago, circa 1968) I used to haul scrap with my 53 Chev pickup, and if I left a piece of wire or copper tubing in the bed when I parked it, it would disappear overnight.

One day I picked up a whole load of scrap hotel silverplate (brass scrap) and had no where to store it overnight. I put the above said sticker on the back of the cab, and put a kink in the blinds in my second floor apartment window.

Not one stick of scrap went missing.
j_martin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 09:55 PM
  #5  
Registered User
 
edwinsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 3,047
Thanked 499 Times in 370 Posts
Originally Posted by John_P View Post
Thanks Edwin!

I remember the bumper sticker we used to see a few years ago that said:

"WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS"

That is right along with what you posted Edwin. It is the truth too, although you can't convince the left-wing "anti-gun" liberals of that!
I think it says a lot about compromising your rights. Rights come from God and our humanity. They cannot be legislated away. The second amendment doesn't grant us the right, it confirms a right we already have and affirms that it cannot be abridged. This means to me... NO COMPROMISE!

Edwin
edwinsmith is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2018, 08:40 AM
  #6  
Administrator
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Holly Ridge, N.C.
Posts: 8,247
Thanks: 0
Thanked 37 Times in 37 Posts
J. Martin:

Thanks for your reply and that great story you shared with us!

-----------
Edwin:

You are right about you said too Sir! Today,...it seems to me that too many Americans just "give up, or give in" way too easily on their rights. The liberals and anti-gunners are constantly looking for that one little opening where they can push laws upon us that frankly will NOT work to stop any of these attacks!

FWIW, I don't know if you guys saw it on the news or not but Florida is close to passing some new gun laws and here is a list of what I heard will be in that new gun law:

1.) Ban on sale of all "bumpstocks."

2.) Three (3) day "waiting period" on the sale of ANY gun,....pistol or rifle.

3.) Noone under 21 can purchase ANY type of firearm, pistols or rifles.

4.) Funding for more SRO's (School Resource Officers) in ALL Florida pubic schools. The rule for the "ratio of officers to students" is around one (1) police officer for every 1,000 students. (I hope I got that right.)
John_P is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 05:27 PM
  #7  
Administrator
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Holly Ridge, N.C.
Posts: 8,247
Thanks: 0
Thanked 37 Times in 37 Posts
Here is some more info on the Florida Gun Law Bill #7026:

__________________________________________________ ___________
SB 7026, dubbed the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act, would toughen gun control in several ways -- but would also allow some teachers to be armed.

If Scott signs the bill into law, it would:

-- Raise the age to purchase a firearm to 21 from 18;

-- Require a three-day waiting period for firearm purchases, with some exceptions;

-- Ban the sale or possession of bump fire stocks, which allow a semiautomatic weapon to fire more like an automatic weapon;

-- Give law enforcement more authority to seize weapons and ammunition from those deemed mentally unfit or otherwise a threat;

-- Provide additional funding for armed school resource officers and mental health services; and

-- Enact the Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program, which would allow some teachers to be armed if both the local school district and local sheriff's department agree.

(That last item was named after the coach who shielded students from bullets with his own body and died in the February 14 shooting.)

But there are several "caveats" to the program that would arm some teachers:

-- Teachers who "exclusively perform classroom duties as classroom teachers" won't be allowed to carry guns on campus, unless they have military or law enforcement experience or if they teach a Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps program;
John_P is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to John_P For This Useful Post:
edwinsmith (03-09-2018)
 
 
 
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
NJTman
Other
9
02-20-2016 02:14 PM
kawi600
Political Discussion
0
03-04-2009 11:11 AM
Shovelhead
Other
7
08-11-2004 01:23 AM
Stamey
Other
8
07-04-2003 10:03 PM


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Good Article On Issue Of "Assault Weapons Ban"


Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.