Every semi-automatic firearm has at least one military characteristic. That’s why the US military also carries semi-automatic handguns. They have at least one military characteristic. The list of characteristics in the current, “assault weapons” ban couldn’t have less impact on the basic effectiveness of the weapon. Adding more to the list will be equally cosmetic.
About the only suggested new restriction that does have some basic effect is the one on magazine capacity. And doing that succeeds only in slowing down re-loads among those who don’t practice that skill.
By the way, there are already millions and millions of larger capacity magazines in private hands in the US. And they last for years if cared for. And how are all those drug laws doing in keeping those relatively more perishable illicit drugs out of circulation?
Banning semi-automatic rifles by themselves is simply a gateway to banning all guns. Since AR type rifles are used in only a tiny fraction of all crimes, banning them won’t stop lunatics like the one who attacked Virginia Tech from using handguns, like he did.
Next stop, therefore, will be more gun bans. At least as long as democrats control government. After all, think of all the underemployed criminal attorneys there must be, as criminal activity has dropped about fifty percent over the past twenty years of growth in lawful gun sales. Whatever happened to the bloodbath over fender benders that was supposed to take place, according to the gun controllers, as shall-issue concealed carry laws proliferated? In fact, how many hundreds of thousands of crimes have been prevented by lawful firearms used as deterrents? You can bet President Obama didn’t ask for research into those numbers when he signed his gun related executive orders earlier this year.
Many gun controllers want to limit the 2nd Amendment to the arms that were available in the 18th century. Because, they claim, that’s all the Founding Fathers could ever imagine.
Even the Vice-President has back-doored a related idea by recently claiming that a shot-gun is a more effective weapon than an AR type semi-auto rifle.
Be careful what you wish for. If the 2nd Amendment is legislatively neutered, the government can then proceed to take over, and censor, the internet, cable tv, digital content, and the phone. Since the internet, cable tv, digital content, and the phone also didn’t exist when the 1st Amendment was adopted. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Remember, we already have lots and lots of gun laws on the books. There isn’t enough tax money available to enforce them all effectively. And most important of all, criminals don’t care.
Every semi-automatic firearm has at least one military characteristic. That’s why the US military also carries semi-automatic handguns. They have at least one military characteristic. The list of characteristics in the current, “assault weapons” ban couldn’t have less impact on the basic effectiveness of the weapon. Adding more to the list will be equally cosmetic.
About the only suggested new restriction that does have some basic effect is the one on magazine capacity. And doing that succeeds only in slowing down re-loads among those who don’t practice that skill.
By the way, there are already millions and millions of larger capacity magazines in private hands in the US. And they last for years if cared for. And how are all those drug laws doing in keeping those relatively more perishable illicit drugs out of circulation?
Banning semi-automatic rifles by themselves is simply a gateway to banning all guns. Since AR type rifles are used in only a tiny fraction of all crimes, banning them won’t stop lunatics like the one who attacked Virginia Tech from using handguns, like he did.
Next stop, therefore, will be more gun bans. At least as long as democrats control government. After all, think of all the underemployed criminal attorneys there must be, as criminal activity has dropped about fifty percent over the past twenty years of growth in lawful gun sales. Whatever happened to the bloodbath over fender benders that was supposed to take place, according to the gun controllers, as shall-issue concealed carry laws proliferated? In fact, how many hundreds of thousands of crimes have been prevented by lawful firearms used as deterrents? You can bet President Obama didn’t ask for research into those numbers when he signed his gun related executive orders earlier this year.
Many gun controllers want to limit the 2nd Amendment to the arms that were available in the 18th century. Because, they claim, that’s all the Founding Fathers could ever imagine.
Even the Vice-President has back-doored a related idea by recently claiming that a shot-gun is a more effective weapon than an AR type semi-auto rifle.
Be careful what you wish for. If the 2nd Amendment is legislatively neutered, the government can then proceed to take over, and censor, the internet, cable tv, digital content, and the phone. Since the internet, cable tv, digital content, and the phone also didn’t exist when the 1st Amendment was adopted. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Remember, we already have lots and lots of gun laws on the books. There isn’t enough tax money available to enforce them all effectively. And most important of all, criminals don’t care.