|
It’s time to ban assault-style weapons, high-capacity magazines
What is the most interesting about this opinion is that it comes less than a year after the passage of a universal background check law. As you will see, it is never enough to pass a law that "fixes" a problem. They want more and more. And when all firearms are banned, then these people will come for your very life. By Seattle Times editorial board [The Seattle Times] But our sun-kissed neighbors to the south are showing bold leadership in fighting gun violence, a terrible epidemic that has our nation living under a growing cloud of fear and anxiety. I see what you did there. Conflate ownership of an object with disease, then with fear and anxiety. If that is the case, then you should buy a gun. Building on California’s longstanding ban on assault weapons, the state’s lieutenant governor is preparing a 2016 ballot measure calling for even tighter restrictions, including background checks on ammunition sales. As California's governmental fist slowly closes on and chokes California patriots, the black market is starting to look better and better. A good investment for a youngster and an even better one for that aging individual seeking additional monies for retirement. And "tightened gun laws" won't stop jihadis. California's draconian gun laws did little to stop individuals from plotting and carrying out mayhem. These newly proposed laws will fall into that category. Until a majority in Congress stands up to the bullying of the gun lobby, states must take action to reduce the proliferation of weaponry that maximizes one’s ability to kill fellow humans. Wrong. As the Constitution clearly states, rights not enumerated by the Constitution are reserved to the people and to the states. Since gun ownership, as well as use is enshrined and confirmed in the Constitution, any restriction against ownership and use are null and void as laws, no matter how long they have been in effect. Washington state should follow suit by banning assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. This would increase the safety of its residents and signal a stance firmly against gun violence. The state, at any level, is not empowered, nor should it have ever been empowered to "increase the safety of its residents". That is up to the several residents, not their government. My guess is that that last phrase was subject to rancorous debate in its wording. What’s less clear is whether Washington has leaders as decisive and concerned about gun violence as those in California. Or must we wait for a horrific catalyst like Newtown or San Bernardino? You must wait, because we all know y'all won't let a few dead bodies stand in the way of disarming the innocent. An assault-weapon ban was floated in Olympia in 2013, after the Newtown, Conn., shooting, but it was fumbled by proponents who since left the Legislature. Translation: They were run off. Another finessed wording by wordsmiths who happen to be propagandists. Washington took a step forward in 2014 when voters overwhelmingly approved Initiative 594, common-sense gun regulation that mandated stricter background checks on gun buyers. A law which has been universally condemned in both private and public circles, and which was openly violated, repeatedly violated since it was passed. Smaller but important efforts continue, such as Seattle’s attempt to fund Harborview’s injury-prevention work with taxes on guns and ammunition and King County’s promotion of safe gun storage in the home. More governmental initiatives to resolve problems that do not exist. Advocates for better gun rules are pursuing policy nips and tucks regionally in hopes of eventually tightening controls nationwide and reducing gun deaths. Washington should renew its effort to ban “tactical” assault-style weapons and possession of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds.”(sic) Ban is just another word for theft... And gun confiscation is just another program for setting armed state paid thugs to use individuals for target practice. While that noble work continues, Washington should renew its effort to ban “tactical” assault-style weapons and possession of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds. There is new support for this approach. On Dec. 7, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a ban on semi-automatic guns and large-capacity magazines in the city of Highland Park, Ill., signaling that such laws don’t run afoul of the Second Amendment. SCOTUS is wrong and those laws do "run afoul" of the Constitution. That’s a relief since too much time has been spent mired in overheated, simplistic arguments about Second Amendment freedoms. Yeah. Ignoring plain language, and attacking and threatening innocents with real bullets fired from actual assault rifles because they own an object that is at one point unpopular, is hard work. Yes, Americans are free to own guns. No, this freedom is not unlimited. This is obvious and clear in a series of federal-court rulings. Federal courts are wrong. And I would argue, given that past behavior and laws passed at all levels of government, the right to keep and bear arms is now unlimited and that the court rulings dating back as far as 1800 are null and void. Whether there should be gun control is no longer a question. Translation: The debate is over, so shut up you AK toting, toothless, unedumacated, fat f*cking redneck! Give up your guns you murdering bastard, or we will murder you. America has all sorts of gun-control rules but they’re often weak and inconsistent. This patchwork places limits on who can buy guns and restricts access to especially dangerous models. Included in that "patch work" are states such as Kansas which passed Constitutional Carry laws. Can't ruin a perfectly fascist opinion piece with that little bit of eye opening news. Of course, California’s stronger laws didn’t prevent the Dec. 2 massacre in San Bernardino. The carnage was likely increased by the use of assault-style rifles available via gaps in the current ban. The carnage was, because the victims to a person were unable to provide counterfire. Nor would banning particular types of weapons eliminate gun deaths or mass shootings. I guess one member of their editorial board considered the above phrase a big victory for liberty. But limiting the availability of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines should reduce the scale and severity of future gun attacks. Ending laws that stop people from buying firearms should be the first order of business, which would actually "reduce the scale and severity of future gun attacks." The goal is about improving the odds, like we do with seat belt laws. People still die in car accidents, but the frequency of death and serious injury plunges when seat belts are required. In the U.S., that saves more than 10,000 lives yearly. Speaking of odds: Did you know when you have 2 versus zero in a ratio, that is actually infinity? You know, two shooters, no one shooting back... The value of this approach was noted in the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling for Highland Park’s gun restrictions, which the Supreme Court let stand. It acknowledged nitpicks, such as the fact large-caliber pistols are more dangerous per shot fired, then added: “But assault weapons with large-capacity magazines can fire more shots, faster and thus can be more dangerous in aggregate. Why else are they the weapons of choice in mass shootings? A ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines might not prevent shootings … but it may reduce the carnage if a mass shooting occurs.” I listen to court pronouncements the same way I listen to Justin Bieber songs. Both contain the same amount of critical thinking skills that only a road paved with printed money can buy. While a tactical rifle with a 40-round clip may appeal to one’s inner G.I. Joe, it is unnecessary for civilians. There are plenty of other options for hunting, sporting and self-defense. It is not your call to determine what is necessary, nor is it government's call to make that determination. Assault weapons are widely available in Washington and most of America. The status quo implies that we don’t mind citizens using guns derived from battle rifles designed to shoot multiple people as quickly and efficiently as possible. We do mind and it has to stop. I swear, if any such law banning "assault weapons" gets passed in my home state or nationally, Fred better start looking for my replacement, because the next day I will show up at work with my trusty rusty AK strapped to my back. And the next and the next, and so on: to infinity. Posted by: badanov 2015-12-21 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=439259 |