www.HyperSmash.com

Sunday, January 6, 2013

Obama White House Plans Broad Gun Control

I will not take your guns away

Gregory Gwyn-Williams Jr. wrote an article reminding us of the promise President Obama made on the campaign trail in 2008

"When you all go home and you're talking to your buddies and you say, ah 'He wants to take my gun away.' You've heard it here, I'm on television so everybody knows it. I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."



                             A lot of people pointed to this video and said to me "Look, Anthony, Barack Obama said it himself, he does not want to take your guns away".  I wish they were correct.  President Obama was a Junior Senator from Chicago and before that he was a community organizer in Chicago as well.  Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation so naturally a politician from Chicago is going to have those same ideas for the nation, never mind that Chicago has one of the worst violent crime rates in the nation. People still told me I was wrong.  I, and my fellow law abiding gun owners, should not worry, so when I woke up this morning and read White House weighs broad gun-control agenda in wake of Newtown shootings in the Washington Post, I was not surprised, but what does surprise me are some of the ways they want to enact gun control and how they want to do it.
"In addition to potential legislative proposals, Biden’s group has expanded its focus to include measures that would not need congressional approval and could be quickly implemented by executive action, according to interest-group leaders who have discussed options with Biden and key Cabinet secretaries." 
This is certainly troubling.  This administration seems to believe that, if the legislative process does not work fast enough or does not work in their favor, they can use Executive Orders to do a run around of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Assault Weapons Ban Ineffective

What is also troubling is the push to re-instate the "Assault Weapons Ban" by Sen. Dianne Feinstein which includes a "ban [on the] the sale or manufacture of about 120 firearms, including semiautomatic rifles and military-style handguns, as well as ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds." Why is that troubling?  Between 1994 and 2004 this type of ban, although a less beefed up version, was in place in the United States, but it did not deter criminals or violent crime, it did however prevent law abiding citizens from owning these firearms.  And according to the Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice (1999) "the ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims."  Why?  Because, in general, assault weapons accounted for 2% of the firearms used by criminals.  Criminals tend not to use these types of weapons.  Interestingly enough the Center's for Disease Control has also admitted that, after analyzing 51 studies done by gun control proponents, the "evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these [firearms] laws."    The worst part of all of this is that the States and Countries that have strict gun laws in place see a sharp increase in violent crime rates, while the States and countries with lesser restrictive gun laws see lower violent crime.  Washington D.C., where a gun ban is in effect, has a murder rate of 46.4 per 100,000 people while just across the river in Arlington, VA, where gun laws are less restrictive, has a murder rate of 2.1 per 100,000 people, and the entire Virginia metropolitan area has a murder rate of 6.2 per 100,000 people.   These statistics are similar around the globe and anti-gun advocates typically point to England saying that since they have banned guns their homicide by firearms has decreased dramatically.  This is correct, and if we banned cars the number of vehicular homicide would decrease as well, but what these people are forgetting is that England has a violent crime rate 3.5 times higher than the United States, even while having vastly less guns.  Overall, the United States has fewer total murders than Europe over the past 70 years.

Trouble for all American guns; safety

What all of this means is that while the numbers point to these gun bans as not only being ineffective but also leading to higher violent crime rates, the Obama Administration and leading Democrats want to continue this push for gun control.  If history tells us anything, and we look to the States and countries that have strict gun laws, we can expect our violent crime rates to jump and we will be defenseless in stopping these assaults, as this ban will effectively leave us unarmed. The fact is, the legislation attempting to come out of Washington is not just going to target those black "military-style" rifles that many in the media portray as what is being used by elite military and police forces, but they will also target hunting rifles and shotguns, such as those pictured to the right.  Do those guns look like the guns that your grandfather or father used or still uses to hunt?  Those guns will also be banned in Sen. Feinstein's bill because those guns are semi-automatic (which means one bullet is  fired when the trigger is pulled).  
The only difference  between those guns and the gun  to the left (an AR-15) is aesthetics.  The guns above have a wooden stock while the one to the left has a polymer/plastic stock.  The one to the left also has a different grip style, but they are the same type of gun; one pull of the trigger, one bullet fired. The AR-15 is said to be used by the military, while the other two guns are never portrayed in that manner.  The AR-15 is not used in the military as the AR-15 is a civilian firearm, but the M-4 and M-16 are used in the military and they look similar.  The major difference is that the M-4 and M-16 have the capability of firing fully automatic, that is, the trigger is pulled once and can fire multiple rounds while the AR-15 does not have that capability.  When our politicians and media say that the AR-15 is a military style assault weapon, what they mean is that it looks like a military style assault weapon, but that is where the similarities end.  What the media and our politicians should call this gun is a civilian-hunting style weapon because that is the honest truth.  However, if our politicians and media called the gun what it truly is and then pushed for the same type of gun control we would see much more backlash from an educated public. I invite the readers to tell me what they think about this issue.  Are you for gun control?  Against it?  Have a middle ground?  What are your thoughts? Anthony

2 comments:

Thanks for reading and commenting. Keep it civil. I reserve the right to delete comments if necessary, but I do not like to do that so do not harass other readers and all will be well.

Spam is not tolerated, nor are assholes.