I haven’t been doing many firearms posts as of late; mostly because so many others do such a better job! Like thefirearmblog.com for instance.

Thank for visiting!

Good thing this administration has proven to be so very transparent already. Or not… and that was just two month ago.

As tabulated by The National Association of Chiefs of Police, in their Annual National Survey of Police Chiefs & Sheriffs, they are overwhelmingly, and consistently (in the 90% range) in support of, “…any law-abiding citizen be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self defense.” The only large stat I’ve seen against so-called “assault weapons” is from the Fraternal Order of Police, but then there’s also a large stat from the American Federation of Police who oppose such bans. So, who do you believe?

A non-partisan, non-profit group called the Law Enforcement Alliance of America has made a statement on the matter. Read it, please… these guys are or were police officers, too. There is pay-for-play going on with most of these organizations’ bureaucrats (like the FOP). I, too, am more inclined to listen to police officers and not a politically-bent bureaucracy when it comes to crime legislation.
~~~~
Would you care to make the same argument against the 1st Amendment? How much of your free speech are you willing to relinquish or allowed to be infringed upon? The 2nd Amendment, like the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, is an individual right, and deserves the same passionate protection. It is not the Bill of Needs.

True, we regulate the ownership of destructive devices and machine guns… we have for many, many years now. You can still legally obtain them, however… they’re not banned (albeit very very expensively). What we’re talking about here is the banishment from ownership a class of weapons, and magazines because, primarily, they are cosmetically distasteful or have unproven “greater destructive power”…. big political scores, not actual crime prevention. This new legislation threatens ALL semi-automatic weapons, regardless of its sporting, self-defense, or dual, purposes.

This isn’t an issue of entitlement, Phil. I suppose you’re too young to remember the Rodney King Trial Riots? Do some research and see why many of the Korean-owned stores in downtown L.A. were not burned to the ground.

The “assault weapon” ban in the 1994 Crime Bill revealed the gun control lobby’s hand: they don’t understand what it is they’re banning and they are only concerned about control, not actual reduction of violent crime.

I agree with you that the assault rifle ban was an imperfect bill. That however is not an argument against the bill, or ideally an even better bill.

Additionally, the vast majority of police organizations around the country support its renewal.

There’s no real argument for why you’re entitled to have an assault rifle or why you need one. The 2nd amendment, like every amendment doesn’t provide you with an unlimited right.

And at the end of the day, I’m much more incline to listen to police officers and not the NRA when it comes to anti crime legislation.

The reality is:
*Violent crime began declining in 1991 (pg72), before the Brady Bill AND the AWB legislation was passed; even since the AWB sunsetted, that violent crime has continued to decline.
*Despite some decreases in gun-specific crimes in limited areas of the country, the overall effects of the ban were “negligible”, “difficult to measure” or even “unmeasurable” according to those reports.
*The legislation itself was troublesome because it banned certain cosmetic features on some firearms but not others; without these cosmetic features, the firearms were essentially the same. I’ve referenced this video before,
please educate yourself.
*The name itself was/is designed to invoke misplaced fear as true “assault weapons” are select-fire weapons that were already regulated in the 1934 NFA and further in 1968 GCA.
*Features such as bayonet mounts don’t mean much to criminals, but gun collectors sure seem to like them.

You will find that that only partial truth ever favors the Brady reading of statistics and reality.

In the end, it’s really not about gun control anyway, just control. The question is: do you support SOME or ALL of our constitutional rights?

This is so FUBAR. Not only that, we have data that proves the 1994-2004 “Assault Weapons Ban” did nothing for reducing crime in this country (as if any thinking person anticipated it would).

Really? Where is this data? Cuz last time I checked a 1997 and a 2004 study, both done by the Justice department, showed that the Assault Rife Ban lead to decreases in gun violence across the country.