Little-Acorn
02-26-2009, 12:04 PM
What used to be the worst-kept secret in Washington, has now become documented public knowledge: President Obama will seek a new ban on so-called "Assault Weapons", similar to the ban that expired in 2004.
The old ban, which ran from 1995 thru 2004, was a spectacularly ineffective piece of legislation. People who predicted a lowering of crime rates in the 90s due to the ban, saw them rise instead. And people who predicted "gunfights in the streets" as a result of its expiration, found none. No increase in crimes, and actually a lowering of crimes in many areas as some state and local govts cracked down on petty crimes, enacted three-strikes laws for more severe crimes, started to allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, and otherwise started acting like actual governments. Criminals fearing that their victims might now be better-armed, probably also contributed to the decline in crime after the AWB expired.
Some people have speculated that the reason the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban had so little effect, is because that kind of weapon was almost never used in crimes to begin with, either before or after the ban.
They didn't even get the definition of an "assault weapon" right. The type was invented in Germany around WWII time, and was a small, light machine gun that could be held and fired like a rifle, but which would fire many shots as long as the trigger was held down. Different from conventional machine guns of the period, which usually had to be mounted on a stand on the ground or in a vehicle, and often served by a crew of two or more men. Other countries started making similar small automatic-fire weapons, such as the Russian AK-47 machine gun and the American M16. Some had a selector switch, that let the user choose between one shot per trigger pull, and continuous fire (machine gun) when the trigger is pulled.
But none of the weapons described in the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban, were machine guns at all. All of them were only capable of firing one shot when the trigger was pulled. Functionally they were identical to many common hunting rifles and target guns. The only difference specified in the AWB, were that the guns had to have certain features that looked scary but didn't change how the gun actually worked - a hole in the stock, or a flash hider on the muzzle end, or a fitting to mount a bayonet knife on the end, etc.
The AWB was the ultimate "feel-good" law for hysterical people afriad of guns: It banned scary-looking ones that were no different from not-so-scary-looking ones. Effects on crime were nonexistent, since such guns were almost never used in crimes anyway. And as many people pointed out, laws banning guns only affect people who obey laws. They disarm only the law-abiding, while criminals go right on getting all the guns they want.
The AWB had only one real consequence: It set a precedent, by which the government claimed the authority to control and even ban guns for completely arbitrary excuses - in this case due to their appearance. And in total disregard of the 2nd amendment to the Constitution, which declared that since an armed populace was necessary, no government could ban or restrict guns in any way.
Now, despite the AWB's demonstrated record of ineffectivity and uselessness, the Obama administration wants to put it back. They are well aware that it has no effect on the crime they claim to be concerned about - the facts are well documented and available for anyone to see.
Instead, they want to re-establish the idea that they can ban guns at any time, for any reason, and don't have to worry about that pesky Constitution any more.
In a word, BOHICA.
---------------------------------
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
by JASON RYAN
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25, 2009
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.
Wednesday Attorney General Eric Holder said that the Obama administration will seek to reinstitute the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004 during the Bush administration.
"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.
Mexican government officials have complained that the availability of sophisticated guns from the United States have emboldened drug traffickers to fight over access routes into the U.S.
A State Department travel warning issued Feb. 20, 2009, reflected government concerns about the violence.
"Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," the warning said. "Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez."
At the news conference today, Holder described his discussions with his Mexican counterpart about the recent spike in violence.
"I met yesterday with Attorney General Medina Mora of Mexico, and we discussed the unprecedented levels of violence his country is facing because of their enforcement efforts," he said.
Holder declined to offer any time frame for the reimplementation of the assault weapons ban, however.
"It's something, as I said, that the president talked about during the campaign," he said. "There are obviously a number of things that are -- that have been taking up a substantial amount of his time, and so, I'm not sure exactly what the sequencing will be."
The old ban, which ran from 1995 thru 2004, was a spectacularly ineffective piece of legislation. People who predicted a lowering of crime rates in the 90s due to the ban, saw them rise instead. And people who predicted "gunfights in the streets" as a result of its expiration, found none. No increase in crimes, and actually a lowering of crimes in many areas as some state and local govts cracked down on petty crimes, enacted three-strikes laws for more severe crimes, started to allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, and otherwise started acting like actual governments. Criminals fearing that their victims might now be better-armed, probably also contributed to the decline in crime after the AWB expired.
Some people have speculated that the reason the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban had so little effect, is because that kind of weapon was almost never used in crimes to begin with, either before or after the ban.
They didn't even get the definition of an "assault weapon" right. The type was invented in Germany around WWII time, and was a small, light machine gun that could be held and fired like a rifle, but which would fire many shots as long as the trigger was held down. Different from conventional machine guns of the period, which usually had to be mounted on a stand on the ground or in a vehicle, and often served by a crew of two or more men. Other countries started making similar small automatic-fire weapons, such as the Russian AK-47 machine gun and the American M16. Some had a selector switch, that let the user choose between one shot per trigger pull, and continuous fire (machine gun) when the trigger is pulled.
But none of the weapons described in the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban, were machine guns at all. All of them were only capable of firing one shot when the trigger was pulled. Functionally they were identical to many common hunting rifles and target guns. The only difference specified in the AWB, were that the guns had to have certain features that looked scary but didn't change how the gun actually worked - a hole in the stock, or a flash hider on the muzzle end, or a fitting to mount a bayonet knife on the end, etc.
The AWB was the ultimate "feel-good" law for hysterical people afriad of guns: It banned scary-looking ones that were no different from not-so-scary-looking ones. Effects on crime were nonexistent, since such guns were almost never used in crimes anyway. And as many people pointed out, laws banning guns only affect people who obey laws. They disarm only the law-abiding, while criminals go right on getting all the guns they want.
The AWB had only one real consequence: It set a precedent, by which the government claimed the authority to control and even ban guns for completely arbitrary excuses - in this case due to their appearance. And in total disregard of the 2nd amendment to the Constitution, which declared that since an armed populace was necessary, no government could ban or restrict guns in any way.
Now, despite the AWB's demonstrated record of ineffectivity and uselessness, the Obama administration wants to put it back. They are well aware that it has no effect on the crime they claim to be concerned about - the facts are well documented and available for anyone to see.
Instead, they want to re-establish the idea that they can ban guns at any time, for any reason, and don't have to worry about that pesky Constitution any more.
In a word, BOHICA.
---------------------------------
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
by JASON RYAN
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25, 2009
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.
Wednesday Attorney General Eric Holder said that the Obama administration will seek to reinstitute the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004 during the Bush administration.
"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.
Mexican government officials have complained that the availability of sophisticated guns from the United States have emboldened drug traffickers to fight over access routes into the U.S.
A State Department travel warning issued Feb. 20, 2009, reflected government concerns about the violence.
"Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," the warning said. "Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez."
At the news conference today, Holder described his discussions with his Mexican counterpart about the recent spike in violence.
"I met yesterday with Attorney General Medina Mora of Mexico, and we discussed the unprecedented levels of violence his country is facing because of their enforcement efforts," he said.
Holder declined to offer any time frame for the reimplementation of the assault weapons ban, however.
"It's something, as I said, that the president talked about during the campaign," he said. "There are obviously a number of things that are -- that have been taking up a substantial amount of his time, and so, I'm not sure exactly what the sequencing will be."