More Cluelessness Masquerading as Valid Opinion

Here’s a little editorial by another of the perennially clueless, apparently written before the bill was killed, printed in a University newspaper (but of course! The bastions of academia are so well educated on the topic of firearms and firearm law.)

Bang, Clinton 1994 assault weapons ban

By W. John Tritt, Opinions Editor, The Keystone

The Senate renewed the historic 1994 ban on assault rifles by a thin margin of 52 for to 47 against. In another vote of 53 to 46 the bill past through denying gun shows the ability to sell firearms without doing any form of back round checks. Both bills are a continued step in the right direction concerning gun laws in the United States.

OK, first off, they didn’t renew anything. They passed amendments to a bill under consideration. But this guy is writing like it’s holy writ.

Former President Clinton’s ban on assault weapons made the sale and manufacture of 19 different firearms illegal. Those apposed to the ban, notably the powerful gun lobby group, the National Rifle Association, say they see no difference between those semi-automatic guns banned and the over 670 semi-automatic firearms that are protected by law for hunting and recreation. It seems ironic that an organization that promotes education and safe use of guns cannot see that the banned firearms are different in many areas that can make them significantly more dangerous that a common hunting rifle. Guns banned by the law all contain multiple assault weapons features, it is not just the fact that they simply semi-automatic.

Weapons included on the banned list include Tec DC9, AK-47s of any style, revolving cylinder shotguns and AR-15s. The weapons are designed for easy, rapid, and widespread fire. It’s simple; they are made to kill as many people as quickly and easily as possible. Some of the different components of banned weapons make them significantly more lethal. Those components include, pistol grips on rifles and shotguns, facilitating shooting from the waist, stalks(??) that are foldable for concealment, and threaded barrels designed for silencers. Does anyone else feel a little uncomfortable with the thought of a rack of silencers and other tools of human assignation being sold next to ping-pong tables in Wal-Mart sporting goods?

Jesus Christ. Did the AWB ban silencers? Did it even address silencers? No, it did not. Were silencers ever sold through Wal-Mart? No they were not. Now, how would a silencer make a gun “significantly more lethal”?

Anybody?

Firing from the hip makes a gun “significantly more lethal”? How? That seems to be a Violence Policy Center talking point, but no one has ever convinced me that unaimed fire is somehow more effective than aimed fire, so what is it about the evil pistol grip that makes the gun “significantly more lethal”? And what the hell is a “stalk,” folding or otherwise? Did he mean “stock”?? If so, how does a folding stock make any gun “significantly more lethal”? Hell, you can’t even use a folding stock as a bludgeon like you can the butt of fixed-stock rifles. I’m surprised he didn’t mention the bayonet lug clause. We had so many mass bayonettings before the ban.

Now we get to the meat of this meathead’s argument:

There’s an argument favored by many wishing for the repeal ban, “The criminals have them anyway.” It’s true that it is impossible to get every single gun out of the hands of criminals. Although, that isn’t giving any credit for our legal system or our police. How it works is as follows, a cop searches a house on a warrant for drugs, no drugs are found, but a banned assault weapon is sitting under the suspect’s bed. Bingo. They’re going to jail and the gun is off the street. If these weapons wouldn’t be banned, the officer would be on his way with the Uzi simply returned to the owner. This scenario is played out daily across America. Criminals do posses these weapons, but those weapons are being rounded up by brave police everyday and the “bad guys” are going to jail.

And he believes this. Possession is not banned. If the cops do a search and there are no drugs, then finding an AK-47 is not a violation of the AWB. If the possessor is ineligible to have any firearm, he can be arrested if they find so much as a .22 derringer, and they can take that gun “off the street.” (I’d like to live on the street these people talk about. I’d love to find an Uzi just laying there “on the street.”) Get this straight: If the guy has no record he gets to keep the Uzi. The AWB prohibits manufacture, not possession.

When it comes to the concern of personal safety, conservative pundit G. Gordon Liddy suggests the use of a revolver, not a semi-automatic military rifle. If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night and you fear for your physical safety, a revolver will clearly be able to stop an intruder. The difference is important; if you were to have some kind of hair trigger firearm you could easily unload an entire clip of ammunition, the mistakes could be horrific.

And again, we get the confusion between semi-automatic and fully automatic. Gordo is quite the fan of autoloaders. But then Gordo is a convicted felon who isn’t allowed to possess a firearm. All the guns in his house belong to his wife.

However, anyone who’s shot a revolver can tell you that you’ve mentally committed to shooting because of how much pressure you must apply. Liddy noted this benefit as a measure of safety against mistakes in the home. Logical.

The United States should keep the assault weapons ban on the books.

Not using the arguments this nimrod just put forth. Just one more example of the ignorant idiocy of the gun fearing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.