Assault Weapons Ban

Gun Control Advocates Hate Us for Our Freedoms

gun control

Let’s face it — the fight for stricter gun control measure is an assault on civil liberties, just the same as laws that infringe on Americans’ right to privacy or free speech. That’s something the Left won’t admit to, but the intent is clear.

The talking point is that expanded background checks and reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban, policies for which the White House and many Senate Democrats are pushing, is consistent with “reasonable regulation” of gun rights. But these measures are a step toward the long-held policy views of gun control advocates, and they will lie and fear-monger until they get their way.

Just last week during a visit to Mexico, President Barack Obama said that many of the guns that are being used by the drug cartels wreaking havoc in the country come from the United States.

“[We] recognize that most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States,” said President Obama. “I think many of you know that in America, our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms, and as President I swore an oath to uphold that right and I always will.”

“But at the same time, as I’ve said in the United States, I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common-sense reforms that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people,” he continued. “That can save lives here in Mexico and back home in the United States. It’s the right thing to do. So we’ll keep increasing the pressure on gun traffickers who bring illegal guns into Mexico.  We’ll keep putting these criminals where they belong — behind bars.”

Biden: Proposed Gun Control Regulations Only the Beginning

During a conference call organized by the anti-gun group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Vice President Joe Biden said that the proposed gun laws in the United States Senate, which includes universal background checks, are just the beginning of the White House’s push for tighter gun control measures:

Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday the expected upcoming Senate votes on gun control are only the beginning of the White House’s fight.

The fate of gun control legislation is unclear. A vote on a Senate bill, including expanded background checks and harsher penalties for gun trafficking, is expected next month.

The White House also has been pushing for limits on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, but those provisions won’t be part of the Senate bill. Instead they are to be offered as amendments, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says they don’t have enough support to pass.

“That doesn’t mean this is the end of the process. This is the beginning of the process,” Biden said during a conference call organized by Mayors Against Illegal Guns pushing for the gun control measures.

Did Dianne Feinstein Lie About Guns?

Dianne Feinstein

You get it, right? Dianne Feinstein doesn’t like guns.  I’m sure I speak for everyone when I say, “Yes Dianne, we get it.”  Feinstein has a history with guns.  You see, she became mayor of San Francisco when Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone were murdered by city supervisor Dan White.  This is a point that Feinstein uses to leverage her position on guns into being somehow more moral than that of gun rights advocates.

Yesterday, Sen. Ted Cruz asked her if she would be as quick to circumvent the First and Fourth Amendments as she is to gut the Second.  Her response [emphasis added]:

“I’m not a sixth grader,” said responded. “Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons.”

“I’ve been up — I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn’t mean that weapons of war and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here.”

Feinstein is saying that she saw Milk and Moscone’s bodies, and that is at least half true.  She is the one who discovered Milk’s body, and she might have seen Moscone’s.  However, she goes on to imply that they were killed with “these weapons”, which is complete bull. Dan White, who murdered Milk and Moscone, used a revolver, the one weapon type that Feinstein is doing nothing about.

Feinstein introduces assault weapon ban bill

Dianne Feinstein

We all knew it was coming.  Well, it’s here.  Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) continues her jihad against so-called “assault weapons” by introducing the bill she warned the world was coming earlier today.

The bill, as ugly as we expected, seeks to ban scores of firearms including all types of AK and AR pattern rifles.  A number of shotguns and pistols are also including in that list.  Of course, Feinstein and her fellow gun jihadists believe they’re fighting the good fight:

During the press event at the Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Democrats described these firearms as “dangerous military-style assault weapons.” The bill would also ban high-capacity ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.

Feinstein said the country’s “weak” gun laws allow massacres like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occur.

“Getting this bill signed into law will be an uphill battle, and I recognize that — but it’s a battle worth having,” Feinstein said in literature handed to reporters at the Thursday event.

Feinstein is right that it’ll be an uphill battle for the bill.  However, Feinstein has to know just how little of a chance this bill has.

The bill will also essentially turn all currently possessed firearms into Class III weapons.  That is the same classification of guns as fully automatic machine guns.  Now, this will mean that those AK and AR pattern rifles are about to soar in value should a bill like this actually pass.

Obama introduces executive orders that wouldn’t have stopped Sandy Hook

Barack Obama

Flanked by children during a press conference earlier today, President Barack Obama introduced a series of executive orders — completely bypassing Congress — that he says will reduce gun violence in the United States:

President Barack Obama on Wednesday announced what he called a “common sense measures” plan to reduce gun violence, including legislation for a universal background check and new bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

He also initiated 23 executive actions aimed at improving background checks, school security and mental health care, in an effort to go around Congress wherever possible.

“I intend to use whatever weight this office holds to make them a reality,” Obama said in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, joined by survivors of gun violence and several children who had written to him after the December shooting in Newtown, Conn. “If there’s even one thing that we can do to reduce this violence, if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we have an obligation to try. And I’m going to do my part.”

President Obama also on Congress to pass other measures, including the assault weapons ban and limited magazines to 10 rounds. All of the measures — executive orders and the legislation that will be introduced in Congress — have been outlined in a document from the White House, which you can read here.

Feinstein’s bill: What it looks like

Both sides of the debate on so-called “assault weapons” have been in high gear lately.  Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) had already declared her intention to introduce a new assault weapon ban before the horrific tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School thrust guns into the national spotlight.  However, most debate was really centered around the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban because all we had was Feinstein’s statements.  There wasn’t an actual bill to speak of.

Well, now thanks to Sen. Feinstein’s website, we know what the bill will look like.

Sen. Feinstein, Sandy Hook Elementary School, and the Second Amendment

Senator Dianne Feinstein is no friend of the Second Amendment.  After the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, Sen. Feinstein called for a new assault weapon ban.  Now, however, she’s claiming that it’s even more important that these so-called “assault weapons” be taken off the streets in light of the tragic events last week at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

From Huffington Post:

“Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds?” Feinstein wrote on her campaign website. “These weapons are not for hunting deer — they’re for hunting people.”

On Sunday Feinstein laid out details of the bill.

“It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession, not retroactively, but prospectively,” and ban the sale of clips of more than ten bullets, Feinstein said. “The purpose of this bill is to get… weapons of war off the streets.”

Ah, the old hunting argument. Before I address that though, I find it disgusting that the senator would choose to talk about her bill in light of what happened, especially since this most recent act had nothing to do with so-called “assault weapons”.  Adam Lanza is alleged to have used two semi-automatic pistols to commit his acts of voilence that horrible day, and unless this assault weapon ban proposes to just hit all semi-automatic weapons, it wouldn’t touch the murder weapons.*

I’d also like to take a minute to remind Sen. Feinstein on the exact wording of the Second Amendment:

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.

The facts of life on high capacity magazines

Second Amendment

James Holmes is an evil man.  Sick?  Quite possibly, but evil none the less.  The same can be said of Jared Loughner who is responsible for the Tuscon shooting.  The two men, and the events they started, also have something else in common.  Both sparked the debate regarding high capacity magazines.

First, let’s clarify something for the non-gun folks who may be reading.  Most semi-automatic weapons are designed around specific magazines.  For an AR-15 or an AK-47, that is a 30 round magazine.  For a 9 mm pistol, it’s usually in the neighborhood of 15 rounds.  Those are properly considered standard capacity magazines, not high capacity.

Now that the bit of nomenclature is out of the way, I know that opponents of guns don’t see any reason why someone needs so many rounds in their magazine.  Well, let me touch on that one.  I probably don’t.  On that note though, neither do the vast majority of police officers in this country who could legally secure these so-called “hi capacity” magazines during the Assault Weapon Ban.  Law enforcement was exempt from the ban, yet how many officers legally discharge their firearms during the course of their career, not counting range time?  Very, very few.

Despite what the movies tell us, police officers find themselves needing to discharge their weapons remarkably few times.  Most police officers go their entire careers and never fire their weapons. The same is true for most private gun owners as well.

The EBR (Evil Black Rifle) and Other Leftist Fairy Tales


In the wake of the mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando this past weekend (which, by the way, was done not with an AR-15, but a Sig Sauer MCX carbine), the anti-gun Left quite predictably renewed their clamor for more gun control laws generally, and an outright ban on military-style “assault” weapons specifically. The Washington Post wrote a lengthy article about the evil AR-15, before having to admit it did not identify the gun in question correctly. Of course, the WaPo is hardly the only media outlet to get it wrong.

In the spirit of compromise, knowing many anti-gun fanatics will demand we do “something” (whether or not that “something” actually reduces gun-related violence), I propose the following: pass a law requiring firearms manufacturers to produce all “assault” weapons in only baby blue or pink, cover them with images of Barbie or Disney princesses, but don’t change anything about the functionality.

As a practical matter, this “solution” would have just about the same effect as renewing the 1994 “assault” weapons ban, which changed the appearance of these guns to make them look less scary, but left the functionality intact.

Rolling Stone wants gun-grabbers to “politicize disaster” to push for more restrictive gun control laws

The anti-gun crowd is still searching for ways to force gun control laws down Americans’ throats, and Rolling Stone columnist Tim Dickinson has stepped in to offer them several ideas on how to do so.

Dickinson says that gun-grabbers need to prepare for a “generation-long battle” and that they need to “think federally” but “act locally,” but he also shameless encourages gun control activists to exploit tragedies (emphasis added):

This isn’t complicated: Making a political issue of the tiny coffins of dead children in the wake of a school shooting isn’t just a thing that helps pass strong gun-control, it’s practically the only thing in the last quarter century that’s moved the needle on anti-gun-violence laws. Recall that the catalyst for the 1994 assault weapons ban was a 1989 school shooting in Stockton, California, that killed five kids and wounded 29 other children.

It’s not distasteful to act in the name of victims of gun violence. What’s distasteful to squander the burning anger and intense political focus that such senseless bloodshed inspires. There’s nothing dishonorable in taking the swift and necessary action to prevent other children from being massacred by an idiot with a war rifle.

Tim Dickinson is a pretty terrible person.

But, to his point, gun control advocates are already doing this. There are a number of examples of the anti-gun crowd using the Sandy Hook tragedy to pass more onerous restrictions on gun ownership, even in the face of declining gun homicide statistics.

The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.