The so-called "assault weapon" ban was stupid--and just about anyone who knows anything about it knows it was stupid.
If you're like most gun owners, you probably have at least one anti-gun friend who can't understand why gun owners opposed the federal "assault weapon" ban originally, or why we oppose it now.
What I've generally found is that the vast majority of those individuals know next to nothing, if anything at all, about what the so-called "assault weapon" ban actually was. What they generally know is that they don't like guns that much in the first place, and they sure don't like any gun specifically designed for "assault."
If you have such a friend, I encourage you to send them this simple quiz and ask him or her to send back the answer.
Most knowledgeable gun owners should know the answer, but I'll be posting it in a separate post later on.
At any rate, here is the first question:
Assuming each of the 20 firearms pictured below was available for purchase in January 1994, how many would have been banned from sale, transfer or use in the United States during the period between 1994 and 2004 owing to the provisions of the Federal "Assault Weapon" Ban?
Good luck!
What:
H.R. 6257: Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008
To reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.
Who:
Sponsor:
Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]
Cosponsors [as of 2008-11-07]
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL]
Rep. Michael Ferguson [R-NJ]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]
Rep. Michael Castle [R-DE]
Did I mention that I hate R.I.N.O.s?
Have you taken the "Assault Weapon Ban" Quiz?
With all due respect to those who are prepared to sing "Kumbaya" with the left-wing Republicans until there is no more Republic left to save, I have to agree with Rep. Paul Ryan that the Republican Party needs to be flushed out with a fire hose.
There are plenty of ways to get involved in getting the conservative movement back on track, but if you believe, as many of us do, that it's long since time to get back to the conservative grassroots, we encourage you to join ReaganCoalition.org, a nationwide network of Reaganite conservative activists coming together locally to rebuild the conservative movement and block the left-wing agenda.
Even if you don't choose join ReaganCoalition.org, please do get involved.
by NoelArmourson 2008-11-17 02:21:49
anonymous (BFE)First, the assault weapons ban was listed as an agenda item on Obama's website.
Then it magically disappeared from the website.
Now it's back:
Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
We have every reason to believe that Barack Obama fully intends to enact this laundry list of stupid proposals.
If you don't know why the "assault weapon ban" is stupid, maybe you should check out the QUIZ.
If we plan to do anything to stop Obama's gun-grabbing nightmare, we're going to have to get organized.
There are plenty of ways to get involved, but if you believe, as many of us do, that it's long since time to get back to the grassroots, we encourage you to join ReaganCoalition.org, a nationwide network of Reaganite conservative activists coming together to rebuild the conservative movement and block the left-wing agenda.
Even if you don't choose join ReaganCoalition.org, please do get involved.
David Hardy is hearing that rumor from a "DC insider."
Sometimes, you read something like that, and you say to yourself, "nah...surely they're not that stupid."
And then, it turns out later that they are, indeed, that stupid.
Stay tuned...
Given that Michael Steele is being mentioned as a possible new leader of the Republican National Committee, gun owners are likely curious about his record on the right to keep and bear arms. I've done a little snooping around. Here's what I've come up with:
Michael Steele was endorsed by the NRA in 2006 in his race for the U.S. Senate.
Dave Kopel opined in 2006 that a win by Michael Steele would have been "a great pick up for the Second Amendment"
Via the Washington Post (2006):
Q: Your views on gun control?
A: My views are pretty much in line with [NRA-backed Gov. Robert Ehrlich]. I grew up under some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. I loved the moment [anti-gun activist] Carl Rowan got caught [with a gun]. That summed it up for me. Summed it up for me...
It's not the law-abiding citizen. It's not the person who used it as a hobby. There's an underground market for guns. Despite the laws, streets are flooded with them...
Q: Should people have access to buy assault weapons or any gun that they want?
A: Well, I mean you draw the line. I mean, what do you need an assault weapon for? I mean, if going hunting, I think that's a little overkill or whatever, but the reality of it is, I think it's important for a society, a community to draw the lines as we've drawn in a number of other constitutional areas, but I don't think that that means that you go to a total ban for those who want to use guns for skeet shooting and hobbying and hunting and things like that.
President-elect Barack Obama has named Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) to be his new Chief of Staff. It should come as no surprise that Rep. Emanuel is, like Barack Obama, a hardcore anti-gunner. Here's a sampling of Rep. Emanuel's recent interest group ratings on gun control:
Gun Owners of America:
National Rifle Association:
More on Barack Obama's hardcore anti-gun record and agenda here.
Election Results: A Major Win for Sensible Gun Laws
Paul Helmke on the Results of the 2008 Election
The election of Barack Obama as President and Joe Biden as Vice President was a decisive victory for common sense gun laws.
The Brady Campaign issued a strong endorsement of the ticket in October because of the candidates' strong support of reasonable gun laws. Sarah Brady, Chair of the Brady Campaign, hailed the election as "a good day for people who want to reduce gun violence in America."
The election also represents a critical loss for the National Rifle Association. The gun lobby spent more than $10 million this election cycle, with the largest portion to defeat Obama. They failed. The NRA's scare tactics about gun confiscation no longer works given the decision in the Supreme Court's decision in DC v Heller this June.
Sarah Brady went on to say that the election was "...a bad day for extremists who are stuck in the rhetoric of the past." There is no indication that candidates, at any level, lost their elections because of support of reasonable gun measures.
Extremists stuck in the rhetoric of the past? This country is going to hell in a handbasket.
We've been blogging here for a while now, and the blog is great medium, but it's not for everyone.
For those of you who like the give-and-take of a discussion forum, we've put together... [drum roll please]...
Drop by and say 'hello!'
Posted in the comments at Jawa Report:
I recently retired from my 20 year career as a gunsmith recently. I specialized in customizing mostly Class III/NFA weapons and fabrication of appropriate accessories to go with them. Both Steve Tyler, and Joe [Perry] were good customers of mine for many years. Steve has a particular love of the Austrian Steyr AUG Assault Rifle. They are both as down to earth as anyone at the local range on a Saturday morning, despite their careers in a field dominated by Libs. It's not unusual to see both Steve and Joe at the big SAR Gun Show in Phoenix each year. No entourage, just a couple of buddies and them cruising the show, always happy to stop for a picture, or sign an autograph. They are the real deal, and great guys. - R. Banks
Posted at Freakonomics:
I am guessing that passionate gun discussions are taking place all over the country today with the news that an 8-year-old boy accidentally shot and killed himself over the weekend at a gun show in Massachusetts.
Every element of this incident — the age of the victim, the controls in place at the gun show, the fact that the gun was an Uzi — will surely be analyzed for many days to come. But it might be worth taking a step back from this single tragic incident and asking a broader question: are gun shows themselves dangerous?
The cause:
USA Today ran an article Tuesday stating that Dan Cooper, chief executive of Cooper Arms in Montana, donated $3,300 to Barack Obama's presidential campaign and had donated to his 2004 Senate campaign after being "dazzled by Obama's speech at that year's Democratic National Convention."
The effect:
"Although we all believe everyone has a right to vote and donate as they see fit, it has become apparent that the fallout may affect more than just Mr. Cooper. It may also affect the employees and the shareholders of Cooper Firearms.
"The board of directors has asked Mr. Cooper to resign as President of Cooper Firearms of Montana, Inc....
We wish him all of the best in his future pursuits."
Buh-bye...
Excuse me while I go cling to my religion and guns....
Via WaPo:
[I]n a state like Virginia, which his home to the National Rifle Association and more than one million hunters, the endorsement carries considerable risk. The NRA, which has endorsed GOP nominee John McCain, is already running ads in Virginia noting that Obama once supported a ban on handguns in Chicago.
And if Obama has made any gains in rural Virginia, it will be tempting for Republicans to use the Brady Campaign endorsement to undercut Obama on the gun issue.
According to the Associated Press, Obama supported a ban on all forms of semiautomatic weapons and other restrictions on firearms when he was in the Illinois legislature. Obama now says he is a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and will not, as president, seek to interfere with an individuals' right to own a gun for hunting and self-protection.
1. no pistol grip.
2. no flash suppresor.
3. 5 or 10 round magazine.
The ability to put a bayonet on a weapon also classes the weapon as an assault rifle.
I don't own a gun and I don't know anything about them. What I do know is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
There's been enough infringing, already. Enough is enough.
Thanks for that, Dave. I wish there were more people like you who have no particular interest in guns but recognize the importance of preserving our Constitutional rights.
In other words, the ban didn't do squat to take these "scary guns" off the "street".
Not that it mattered much anyway, since less than 2% of violent crimes committed with a gun are committed with these expensive, heavy, and difficult-to-conceal military style rifles.
Further, with minor modifications (eg lack of bayonet lug, stupid-looking thumbhole stock, etc), functionally identical guns WERE widely manufactured and available during the ban years.
Lastly, as a side thing, that Galil is pretty cool, and I wish the OTHER gun ban (that prevented their importation) would be revoked too.
I really do not "see" a problem here. Pretty much all crime committed with a fire-arm is usually a pistol. And usually the punks don't use it because they are stupid (thank god) or don't have the money to afford bullets, or went to purchase ammo and bought the wrong type because they are stupid and have had no NRA training, which, if they did, they would have learned that guns should not be used for crime and that the police and armed public do know how to use firearms better than these punks.
Cool Website!
Since they were ALL available for sale, etc., BEFORE the ban, they were grandfathered and therefore NOT covered by the ban.
They just cost more during that 10 year period!! :(