Today freedom loving Americans can celebrate the end of at least one unconstitutional law, Clinton's 1994 ban on so-called "assault weapons" which expired yesterday. Note that these formerly prohibited guns are not functionally different than a lot of other guns. It was largely a cosmetic issue. By rights, it should have been called the ban on guns that look scary to ignorant people who know nothing about guns.
However, the expiration of this ban comes with no thanks to my opponent, Senator Evan Bayh. Evan Bayh proudly voted earlier this year to extend the ban, supported by exceedingly lame claims that this would constitute a prudent move in the war on terror. Right. Oh well, the Bayh family has a long history of pushing for gun control.
But let's not leave the senator alone in the hall of shame for supporting this bad law. You expect this from a liberal Democrat, but President Bush also supports an extension or re-authorization of this ban. Senator Bayh probably really thinks in his heart that this ban was a good thing, but Bush absolutely knows better. He's simply whoring for "moderate" votes. I guess those come from nice, moderate people who favor only moderate violations of the constitution and modest abrogations of the Bill of Rights.
I predict that we find absolutely NO statistical increase in crime caused by the expiration of this ban.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Mark Saleski
considering as to how the difference between the banned & not banned weapons was pretty small, this was a silly law...especially when touted as something that would reduce crime.
i have a question about the right to bear arms: is there any limit?
can i own a mortar launcher?
a shoulder-fired rocket launcher?
a scud missile?
a tank?
just asking.
(dang, a tank would be fun)
2 - boomcrashbaby
I predict that we find absolutely NO statistical increase in crime caused by the expiration of this ban.
Probably agreed. More people won't die, but those who will die, will die much differently now. The real difference is that a police officer will be killed, instead of by a single bullet, by about 600.
3 - Al Barger
Boom, you're responding as though you thought that the legal status of their preferred weapons made any difference whatsoever to criminals.
At that, they were ever the preferred choice of criminals only a couple percent of the time to begin with. They weren't banned because they were being used in so many crimes, but because they look extra scary to some people.
4 - boomcrashbaby
Boom, you're responding as though you thought that the legal status of their preferred weapons made any difference whatsoever to criminals.
No, but I do think the legal status determines the availability of their preferred weapons, even on the black market.
Yes, if a killer can't get an AK-47, he'll use a knife, he'll still have the impulse to kill, but imagine how much different Columbine or that Russian school tragedy would be if only knives were used.
I believe in the right to bear arms, but I don't understand why we need guns that are the equivalent of mini-rocket launchers. It's clear that you don't like the ban, but what is your stance on guns? Is it unlimited? What if they created a gun that fired a bullet that exploded with the force of a dirty bomb upon impact. Would you be okay with selling that to the general public?
5 - Mac Diva
Mark, the Second Amendment has been interpreted by the courts to mean that the general public has a limited right to own weapons. Under it, individuals can be prohibited from owning many kinds of fire power. (Political expediency is another matter, considering a monied lobby in favor of 10 guns in every pot. That is what letting the ban expire is really about.) I don't know that the assault weapons ban had much impact on the number of maimings and murders, but it was a positive symbolic gesture.
I just happen to recall what the Second Amendment says in its entirety. Since the writer of the entry failed to even mention it, I will be charitable.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Interesting how they forgot to say that John Doe could have his own private arsenal, isn't it?
Let's just say that Al Barger's interpretation of the Constitution is different from that of most people who have studied the amendment. So was Timothy McVeigh's.
6 - Evilwhiteguy
Well, now that the ban is expired, you CAN get a grenade launcher to mount under your assult rifle. You can't buy grenades, but you can buy casings that will fit nicely in the launcher and plans on how to make your own flares. Luckily, there's a gun show in town this weekend. Should be quite a bit of fun.
Oh, and a bayonett mount is once again legal too :)
7 - Shark
Here's the deal, kids: yall can argue all you want about the Second Amendment, and Al -- defender of the Constitution against pinko liberals -- can celebrate the ability to hunt dove with RPGs all he wants, but it really just comes down to this:
1) Shark can now go out and buy an assault rifle legally. It will take me about a day to finalize the purchase, add that little do-hickey that turns it 'fully automatic', and stockpile a few million rounds.
2) I hate everyone, am "a loner", have been unemployed for over four years, have nothing to lose, my mantra is "Victory or Death!", and my favorite book is "Maldoror"?
You do the math.
~And God bless ya, Al!
8 - Eric Olsen
PR does count, symbolism does count, no sane civilian needs an assault rifle, the right to bear arms is not absolute, this was pure political expediency on Bush's part - quietly favoring that the ban be continued, but doing nothing to continue it - and more endless Republican pandering to the NRA. I am sickened by this.
9 - Mark Saleski
i still want a tank.
10 - Shark
I want an isolation tank.
11 - Hal Pawluk
As a multiple-gun owner who resigned from the NRA a few decades ago (they weren't speaking for me), my opinion is that the "W" in "George W. Bush" stands for "weasel" on this issue.
His letting the ban lapse was politically-expedient but the act of a coward.
While there may not be any statistical evidence that the Act did any good, it certainly did no harm so why not keep it?
And personally, I would have liked to see it extended so the "work-arounds" by the gun manufacturers on the affected guns were made illegal, too.
12 - jadester
don't be silly shark, assault weapons can have many more uses - e.g. protecting your wide estate of open land. because, y'know, the vast majority of US citizens own huge amouints of land, that are constantly at risk of invasion from islamic terrorists/badass gangstas/pinko liberals/evil commies (delete as appropriate, or leave them all in). Assault weapons are the only way to be truly safe from these evil dudes...
13 - Al Barger
I don't see where the Second Ammendment says that you have to justify to anyone else why you want what kind of gun. Unless I'm misusing it, it's none of your damned business what I want it for.
14 - Temple Stark
>I don't see where the Second Amendment says that you have to justify to anyone else why you want what kind of gun. Unless I'm misusing it, it's none of your damned business what I want it for.
Extend that out to its logical conclusion Mr. Barger and it is neither logical nor a conclusion.
There's absolutely no reason to have these type of guns. I like a country that bans assualt weapons. It's the right thing to do. What's wrong with personal ownership of a nuke - as long as you don't misuse it?
The assault weapons ban shouldn't be a political thing. But, then, national politics rarely has anything to do with humanity.
15 - Al Barger
This kind of thing always annoys me: "The assault weapons ban shouldn't be a political thing."
What this means is that we should just concede our liberty without any argument. Screw our rights, screw the constitution, and screw the wisdom of our founding fathers because Temple has declared it simply to be the right thing to do.
To answer a particularly silly point, a nuke is hardly the same thing as a gun, is it? No gun in your basement is going to blow up and instantly take out the whole neighborhood.
16 - bhw
AL, the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about GUNS. It says ARMS. A nuke is an armament, isn't it?
Where do you draw the line at which armaments are legal for citizens to own and which aren't?
17 - jadester
"To answer a particularly silly point, a nuke is hardly the same thing as a gun, is it? No gun in your basement is going to blow up and instantly take out the whole neighborhood."
actually, my understanding is that nukes are pretty sturdy, certainly built to survive a plane crash. The only way it's gonna go off is if you trigger it.
An assault weapon may not be able to take out a neighbourhood. but if you were to charge into a crowded public place, spraying bullets at the rate many assault rifles do, you'd quickly rack up the kills. Now are you gonna tyr and tell me that because it's a lesser evil than a nuke, it's an acceptable risk?
and i still haven't heard a reason why you'd want a working assault rifle. If you just enjoy shooting stuff, get yourself a (cheaper in most places) BB gun and go airsofting - then you can actually shoot people without worrying that
1) they'll die, and
2) you'll get thrown in jail for many years for doing it. Although if you're not at an official site you *could* get arrested for causing onlookers to think you actually DO have a real weapon.
If you just like to look at them, then buy deactivated/replicas/blank firers.
Unless you feel like a "big man" by owning a real, live assault rifle. bet it makes all your buddies look at you with awe huh? I wish i needed a gun to feel like a man...
18 - Temple A. Stark
Ding Ding.
That was one of my points Jadester. Nuke's are comparatively safe, compared to assault rifles. I do realize that a nuke is an extreme example but its well within the bounds of your logic Al.
And who knows, I may be smarter than the founding fathers. :) I've heard of assault rifles for one thing.
19 - James R. Oglesby
Just completed a review of twenty mass shootings. The most effective weapon was the shotgun, killing over 62% of those shot and accounting for ten dead per shooter and ten dead per weapon. The dreaded assault rifle when used alone achieved a 25% kill rate and the lowly regular pistol (non-assault type) killed 47% of those shot.
20 - Al Barger
Pinko types just gush all over the Bill of Rights - until they get to something they don't like.
Jadester, you're welcome to make tired Freudian cracks about the manhood of gun owners. You're NOT welcome to take their guns.
You and Temple are somewhere in Neverland, though, trying to say that a nuke is safer than an assault rifle- especially if it was something someone built in their basement.
BHW, there's some basic idea of public danger. No form of bad thing that could reasonably happen with a gun in your basement will take out the neighborhood. However, a nuke could- whether accidentally or on purpose- destroy the neighborhood very easily, even without specifically blowing up. Just consider a leak of the nuclear material. Ugly scene.
I'm all in favor of freedom to bear arms, but it's understandable that it's considered unacceptable to store cases of dynamite sticks in your apartment. Any little thing could go wrong and cause catastrophic damage, even if you're not intending it.
Guns, on the other hand, don't fire themselves, and are not going to just blow up in a house fire and take out the neighborhood.
21 - bhw
Okay, so you're saying any kind of gun should be legal, but explosives should not?
22 - Mark Saleski
Pinko types just gush all over the Bill of Rights - until they get to something they don't like.
sure thing al.
just like when conservatives bark about criminals being let of on 'technicalities'...like unreasonable searches, for instance.
or when conservatives tell liberals to shut the fuck up and get out of the country for having the nerve to voice dissent against a 'wartime president'.
and for the record, i'm liberal and have no problem with gun ownership of any sort.
tanks included!!
23 - Al Barger
Yes, Mark, sometimes conservatives do not show proper respect for due process and rules of evidence - though perhaps occassionally there are some questionable invocations of, say, the Fourth Ammendment.
Sorry that you object to people exhibiting their First Ammendment rights to tell war protesters to honk off. However, some of them needed a good cussing.
As always, these criticisms of liberals are of an "if the shoe fits" variety. Indeed, gun rights used to be much more a populist liberal thing 60 or 80 years ago.
24 - Mark Saleski
oh, i have no problem with people "anti-protesting".
what i don't like is that attitude of "you have no right to say that". screw that!
25 - geekgirl2
This desire to have guns (inlcuding assault weapons) in the hands of citizens seems a little strange to me. Why do people need guns anyway? Almost no one where I live has a gun, and thus few people are killed with them. What are Americans so afraid of? Is it their fellow citizens? If they are that is scary in itself.