Obama Drops the Bomb, Seeks “Assault Weapons” Ban Renewal

We’re f*cked

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder told reporters.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

“I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.” Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.

To quote Sebastian:

So we are going to lose our gun rights because our government can’t secure its borders, and the Mexican government can’t secure law and order and weed out corruption in its military, which is no doubt a large source of firearms for drug cartels.

Yup, Mexico has descended into chaos, actively encourages its citizens to illegally migrate here for work because it lacks the political will to enforce/encourage law and order and therefore attract industry, and refuses to police its own… and WE, the U.S. citizenry, have to pay the price for it with 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).  The only people such laws affect are the law-abiding; those that choose to ignore existing law will continue to ignore new laws as the always have.

Anyone who didn’t see this coming, though, was fooling themselves.  Forget what this administration says, you need to look at what they’ve done in the past.  It’s quite simple, really: they say one thing and do another.

“We won’t raise your taxes”…with all this new deficit spending… impossible.

“We won’t take your guns” … you get the picture.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Obama Drops the Bomb, Seeks “Assault Weapons” Ban Renewal

  1. 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.

  2. Sure, if you follow the Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center talking points.

    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?

  3. Umm, I’m not quoting the Brady campaign, I’m quoting the department of justice. The bottom line is TWO justice department studies have shown the decrease in crime under the assault rifle ban’s passage.

    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.

  4. One other point.

    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.

  5. And, again, you’re ignoring the fact that violent crime (which includes firearms) was already in decline years before the ban was put into place and those same studies are quoted saying, “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.” Or did you not follow my links?

    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.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s