Don't You Dare Say You Didn't Know

Well, here it is again. The .50 caliber sniper rifle thing fizzled like a wet firecracker, and then the AWB sunset in 2004 and all was right with the world for a few years. Then, out of the blue, a democratic representative from New York put HR 1022 on the table for the committee, entitled "The Assault Weapons Ban And Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007". That's a pretty misleading name, at least the second half, as it was already proven from 1994 to 2004, when the OLD "Assault Weapons Ban" under the guise of the "Omnibus Crime Bill" did nothing to protect law enforcement AND nothing to deter crime.

I am absolutely not requesting that you take my word for it. The studies are public and available, including at least one that had a gun control agenda that did not work out the way they expected at all.

You are reading nothing new. The AWB was based on lies before. This AWB is based upon the same lies, even flying in the face of facts which indicate the exact opposite of what the lies about "assault weapons" profess to be the gospel truth.

This bill, introduced in February of 2007, is already in committee. Is it not interesting how quickly this thing is greasing its way through Congress towards becoming law, especially considering there have been bills tabled for years? Yes, my dear friends, it's coming again. And this time, there won't be any "sunset" provision after a decade like the 1994 ban. 1994's ban was an experiment in "incremental legislation", a promotion of the gun control agenda, which has little to do with firearms in and of themselves at all (indicated partially by the complete lack of firearms knowledge exhibited by the folks working so hard to ban them) and is all about controlling people. It is emotional chest-beating and heart-tugging and crying out for the children to villainize a tool that just happens to be the one thing that will guarantee that a populace cannot be coerced by government. Yes. Very interesting, that.

For you to believe that gun control is a good thing, you must first be able to resolve a few paradoxes: First and foremost, you must believe that a piece of equipment is inherently evil all the time except in the hands of government personnel. An "Assault Weapon" is an evil device, the spawn of the Devil himself, unless being held by a government Paladin who somehow negates its evilness with his goodness. This could be an extension of "the ends justify the means" or "he's taking care of us all, so he needs to have things regular folks don't need." After you swallow this one, ignoring the fact that the United States Supreme Court has stated directly and specifically that the government has absolutely no duty to protect individuals of the public at large, and therefore cannot be sued for failure to protect, you can move on to the next paradox; That a victim, feloniously assaulted and dead, with the criminal on the loose to prey on other members of your society, is morally superior and societally more acceptable than an alive, unvictimized would-be victim and a dead criminal predator who not only did not victimize this one person, but will also never victimize anyone else ever again; Follow this one up with the fact that police officers need "evil" weapons to do their jobs because they face dangerous risks, but the same people who live and work in the areas where those risks exist do not; And finally, you have to believe that criminals will suddenly change their evil ways once you take their favorite toys away from them.

If you can believe any or all of the above paragraph, then gun control makes sense to you, and there is absolutely nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. I wish you well and can only hope that reality never places you in a position where you must reconcile those beliefs with what is actually happening.

For the rest of us, who really just want crime to go away so we can get on with our lives, I propose some more sensible (albeit less intuitive, due to the level of indoctrination we have shared for the past several decades) options for diminishing crime, also based upon valid studies and real-life statistics, which I honestly prefer because when people are willing to put their lives on the line for their beliefs, and those beliefs turn out to be true, it is a rather compelling and credible testimony as to the efficacy of the implementation of those beliefs.

Speaking of which, it is interesting to note how many gun-control advocates, who would seek to disarm you, your family, your neighbors, and pretty much everyone else, have their own firearms and permits and even armed bodyguards to go with them, apparently because they believe that gun control is good for everyone except themselves and their associates. Yes. Very interesting, that.

Here is an unconventional idea: Follow cities like Kennesaw, Georgia. Or Virgin, Utah. Or Gueda Springs, Kansas. Or Franklintown, Pennsylvania. These cities have enacted ordinances REQUIRING at least one firearm in the home and at places of business. Kennesaw was first, enacting their ordinance in 1982. Since that time, the population of Kennesaw has increased exponentially, while their crime rate started dropping at the beginning of the enactment, and now is considered the "Safest City in America."

In contrast, places like New York City, Washington DC, and Los Angeles, California, with some of the "toughest" gun control laws are also the locations with the highest crime rates.

So when something comes along like a "Law Enforcment Protection Act" that actually does nothing except make conditions more dangerous for law enforcement, it makes me wonder who is stupid enough to be fooled by this? Calling a dolphin a dog does not in fact make it a dog. Yet if the government does it, it's a dog, right?

This Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act is bad legislation, based upon a proven lie. Not only that, it will affect you negatively even if you do not own an "assault weapon." Here is how: First, in the text of the legislation, it specifically empowers the Attorney General of the united states to interpret and decide what is an "assault weapon" and what is not, which means, even if you do not currently own an "assault weapon", at any time in the future if this law passes, the Attorney General can make any gun you own into an "assault weapon" with the stroke of his pen, and you will have little to no legal recourse. Don't believe me; Read the law. I am most definitely not kidding or making this up. Second, not only are "assault weapons" banned, but so are "high capacity" magazines, with an arbitrary shot count of ten. Of course, this does not apply to law enforcement or the military, since of course they need to have every edge against a determined enemy they can possibly get. But what about you, the civilian, who will most certainly not get attacked when the police and their high-capacity magazines are around, and you are restricted by law to the level of defensive firepower available to you? Is a police officer's life more valueable than your own? Or are you expected to be a better shot and tactically superior to a police officer, and therefore need fewer shots to protect yourself? The ten-shot magazine restriction is part of the ban, and it hurts those who need protection the most. That may be you. I recall with interest how many lifetime gun-control supporters, who never dreamed they would ever need a gun, found themselves stopped by the 15 day waiting period that they themselves advocated and voted for, when the 1992 Los Angeles Riots were in full swing. Denied the very protection they were certain they would never need, in the moment they needed it the most. They did it to themselves. Will you? Will you take away your only option long before you need it, only to find that when you need it, you will have already voted it away?

Just for the sake of completeness, I should note that what the law classifies as an "assault weapon" is merely a rifle that shoots once each time the trigger is pulled (also known as semi-automatic, since it is not fully automatic, which would be a machine gun, already heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 -- protection act? Starting to see a trend here with deception in naming the law?) that accepts a detachable magazine, has a stock that folds or collapses, and has a flash suppressor. They add on "or grenade launcher" as if a grenade launcher is not already a restricted item which in fact, it is, with specific law relating to its mere possession. You would think from the text of the article that having a magazine you can remove, a stock you can extend or retract, and a thing on the end of the muzzle somehow transforms the function of a plain rifle into the evil "assault weapon." Law based on looks? What's next? Required registration of ugly people? Banning of cars painted awful colors? Outlawing hawaiian shirts?

The Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 is not what it says it is, it will not do what it proposes to do, it classifies equipment on looks instead of function, and criminalizes a whole section of society based upon their own personal taste.

If that does not convince you it is bad law, then I guess you should vote for this legislation that would be better suited lining the bottom of a birdcage than dictating a standard of behavior for a free society.

It is bad law, and it is a lie, and nothing good will come of it, and much evil will be visited upon us if it is passed.

When you come back to this article and read it years later after you voted for this flushable waste, whining that you didn't know how bad it was, or that you believed its title, I tell you in no uncertain terms that I did my part and told you exactly what it was, and you have absolutely no one to blame but yourself and you deserve the evils you have visited upon yourself by continuing to blindly support the politicians who voted to make this into law.

I sincerely hope that you personally research everything I have said here for validity and truth, because I have and have absolutely no problem with someone else fact-checking my statements. See if your local news media is as honest. Then decide who you will believe.

And just for the record, even if this law passes, I've already got mine, so I don't care if you ruin your chance to get yours before they're made illegal. You can't hurt me; I learned from the 1994 AWB that if you don't get it before it's gone, you won't get it. So I got it. And I swear, I will have absolutely no problem with my conscience making a huge profit off you when you come to buy my extras I'm hoarding, because you did it to yourself.

And when you whine about forking over a thousand bucks to me (or someone else) in the future when you need it for something I paid twenty dollars for today...

Some people study Dale Carnegie; I study Anne Coulter.

Interesting course. What are the exams like?

(Don't even THINK of the word "Orals"!)

I disagree with your premise that it is the non-voters that are to blame. To me, that is like a company blaming the marketplace for not embracing its product. The Republican party is responsible for gaining my vote. They seem to be moving in a direction that makes it less likely that I can support them.

I mean, for the first time since 1922, the Repblican Party FAILED to win enough votes to maintain control of the NH legislature! Go ahead and blame the folks that were not moved by the agenda the GOP has been acting on. But it won't change the fact that the Dems are in control because the Republican Party FAILED.

"But it won't change the fact that the Dems are in control because the Republican Party FAILED."

how did it fail then?
lets see on the federal level we had the tax cuts, AWB went away, partial birth abortion ban and 2 coservative judges appointed to SCOTUS
granted i dont like the deficet spending but the main reason we had a dem surge was people fed up with the war in Iraq. Only way to blunt said surge was to go out there and vote for who you agree most with. you may not like everything a person stands for but how does it help your cause if people you dont agree with at all are elected.
look at MO with Talent - a good conservative thrown out noe they have McCaskill
yeah that helps

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.