Another Unsigned Editorial
Remember, we anonymous bloggers have no credibility but it’s OK for a fairly prominent newspaper to spew forth unreasoned and unsupportable arguments to further an agenda. They just call it an editorial:
The law, which is set to expire Sept. 13, was put in place following a 1993 incident in which an unhappy client burst into a law office at 101 California St. Armed with two assault weapons, he killed eight people and wounded six others.
Those two assault weapon were Tec DC9s, which are 9MM handguns. Would they have felt better if he had used a couple of Glocks?
Just a few weeks ago, young San Francisco police Officer Isaac Espinoza was shot to death by a killer with an AK-47 rifle.
But we have the assault weapons ban in place now and still someone was killed with an AK-47?
Opponents often portray the ban as a sweeping infringement on the rights of law-abiding gun owners, but in fact the legislation affects a very limited number of weapons. Most are useless for hunting and too dangerous for home defense, and some are not even accurate enough to make for good target shooting.
… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. makes no reference to sweeping infringements. It says shall not be infringed. The legislation affects no weapons, it affects the features some weapons can have. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
This bill does not prohibit those weapons that might arguably be most useful for defending a person or a home; it does not affect the guns sought after by the vast majority of reasonable hunters and target sportsmen; and the precautions it requires of retailers are minor, considering the potential for destruction and loss of life such guns represent in the wrong hands.
New strategy for the anti-gunners, minimizing the impact. Remember, DiFi said that if she could have gotten 51 votes she’d have told Mr. and Mrs. America to turn them all in. And target sportsmen use M1As and AR15s in competition shooting, these weapons’ allowed aesthetic features are affected by the ban. And these guns are no more dangerous than comparable hunting rifles. A Ruger Mini 14 is functionally identical to an AR15 (same ammunition, semiautomatic, and same magazine capacity) but one is banned and not the other.
In reality, the assault weapons ban asks gun makers, sellers and purchasers to shoulder a very slight burden of responsibility in exchange for a potentially very large benefit for public safety.
Continuing with the theme of minimizing the impacts of the ban, it should be noted that slight burden is sacrificing your rights. There has been no evidence to suggest the current Assault Weapons Ban has affected crime at all. Gun crime has been on the decrease for a while and these weapons were used in less than one half of one percent of crimes.
The anti-gunners are trying to put a reasonable face on the legislation. They’re saying C’mon, it’s just a little gun control. This is an attempt to keep the foot in the proverbial door. Do not be fooled.
