Heartened by Senate Vote, Anti-Gun Groups Demand 'Stronger' Ban

(CNSNews.com) - Gun control groups not only want Congress to pass an extension of the 1994 "assault weapons" ban -- they also want the ban to be "strengthened."

They said they are heartened by this week's gun control votes in the U.S. Senate.

The Washington-based Violence Policy Center accuses the gun industry of "willfully circumventing federal law" by modifying a new generation of weapons and renaming them 'post-ban' or 'after-ban' assault weapons.

Such weapons are perfectly legal under the so-called "assault weapons" ban. But the Violence Policy Center accuses the gun industry of evading the intent of Congress by "making minor cosmetic changes and producing 'clones' and 'knock-off' versions to continue to sell for profit at the expense of public safety."

The group singled out six Illinois gunmakers that manufacture "post-ban assault weapons." It said a new study shows that Illinois has more "post-ban" assault weapon manufacturers than any other state.

Even if the U.S. Senate had passed an extension of the semi-automatic weapons ban, "the extension would do nothing to curtail Illinois unique distinction of being number one in manufacturing these deadly assault weapons," said Thom Mannard, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says renewing the assault weapons ban will be its highest priority for the coming months.

In a press release, the group praised John Kerry for speaking "loud and clear on what America should be doing to reduce gun violence." On Tuesday, Kerry voted in favor of an amendment that would have extended the Clinton-era ban on "military-style assault weapons."

That amendment contributed to the defeat of a larger bill that would have protected gun makers from politically-motivated lawsuits intended to drive them out of business.

Brady Campaign President Michael Barnes praised "police leaders, crime victims and elected leaders of both parties" for "standing up and rejecting the extremist agenda of the National Rifle Association's leadership."

The fact that the Senate passed an amendment extending the assault weapons ban shows that "common-sense gun safety laws are back on the national agenda," Barnes said.

"As of today, these military-style weapons of destruction are only outlawed in this country for 195 more days," he warned. "Our priority in those 195 days is to work with police, Congress and the American public to make sure this ban remains in effect. To let it expire would be an outrage."

In the weeks ahead, gun violence advocates will be preparing for a second Million Mom March on May 9 in Washington, D.C. They're calling it "the Mother's Day March to Halt the Assault." Activists will call on Congress to reauthorize and strengthen the assault weapons ban, the Brady Campaign said.

The Clinton-era "assault weapons" ban is a total fraud and should be allowed to lapse, Second Amendment groups say.

"Even before the Clinton ban was enacted, federal surveys showed that violent criminals carried a 'military-type gun' only in about one percent of the crimes nationwide," Erich Pratt, Gun Owners of America's director of communications, said in a recent press release.

Gun owners object to the ban because it arbitrarily outlaws a certain group of guns based on how they look -- characteristics that give them a "military-style" appearance.

Equally offensive to some gun owners is the fact that the government is deciding which guns have "legitimate" uses -- the argument that "you don't need an assault weapon to go hunting."

"The Second Amendment is not, and never has been, about shooting ducks, deer, clay targets or tin cans," said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), in a recent press release.

Another argument holds that by rallying Americans against "assault" weapons first -- gun control groups will find it that much easier to achieve their ultimate goal of eventually outlawing all guns.

At the time of the writing of the Second Amendment, the "Militia" were simply: the Army. "Regulated" was defined as controlled. (This from an English Dictionary ca 1814).

Using a little substitution, " A well controlled Army being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The second amendment has always been about giving the people the ability to keep the army from seizing control.

This is further bolstered by the debate in the Federalist Papers over the existence and/or size of any standing federal army.

I think you are wrong here. The militia at the time of the Revolution and writing of the Constitution was simply the whole body of the people. In particular, able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45.

A more realistic interpretation would read: "A populace well trained in the use of infantry weapons being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shann not be infringed."

Read the discussions in the Federalist Papers about a standing army. The gist is this: a small Federal Army, enough to settle disputes between State Militias (armies), but not enough to overwhelm them; the state militias to be kept in check by the populace, who with arms could, by sheer force of numbers, even in the absence of martial training, carry the day.

Initially These United States were not called The United States. Each State Was a soverign entity; each had its own army.

You can quibble about meanings, but the definitions I gave you are from an English Dictionary printed about 1814 (Geo III's son had just taken over as Regent), and not just my opinion. The founders spoke and wrote in English, unchanged from the mother tongue, rather unlike today's American version.

More research leads one to discover that there were many different wordings considered to express this fundamental right, but the understanding that an opressive, largely military government had been so recently thrown off made explanation unnecessary.

Who would have thought that our culture (not human nature, but our culture) might evolve to the point that the right to arms and even self defense would be questioned?

There are still a number of opressive and tyrannical regimes in the world, and the only thing necessary for it to happen here is for people to lay down their arms and say it cannot.

An afterthought:

The infantry firearms of the day were muskets used in volley (area) fire.

One of the prime strengths of the Colonials was that they were not trained in "modern" infantry tactics, nor were all using the same weapons.

Rather, the Colonists used hunting arms, including rifled weapons, capable of more accurate fire, with occasionally devastating results.

Sharpshooters aimed at the enemy's commanding officers, not just the rank and file as was the European custom.

The Iroquois (and others) had taught many (by experience) the advantages of the skulking way of war, using cover and concealment to gain advantage on the enemy.

Had they been trained in infantry tactics of the day with common infantry weapons of the era, they would not have had the advantages provided by unorthodoxy.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.