The nightmare of ten years of peace and prosperity (at least, from the stand point of banned assauult weapons, like uzis and AK-47s and the like) have come to an end, as the assault weapons ban imposed by Congress and signed by Bill CLinton in 1994 comes to an end at midnight.
You don’t even have to cite Columbine and that sort of thing: Al Qaeda operatives in the United States can now much more easily get their hands on these kinds of weapons, for use within the United States. (It would smack of some kind of sick poetic justice and irony if and when these kinds of weapons are used to attack and/or kill American government officials, as they have been so used in other countries, particularly those officials responsible for the outrage of allowing this ban to expire as we attempt to shore up “homeland security” and win the “war on terror”.)
The constitution doesn’t seem to protect us from our right to be arbitrarily detained and denied counsel at the President’s whim. Evidently, only the Second Amendment counts in the bill of rights (just ask John Ashcroft.) The right to bear arms seems insufficient: we have the right to bear heavy, semi-automatic arms.
Nothing good will come out of allowing this ban to expire now. This one was easy: but Congress and the President were more interested in not pissing off the gun lobby (most gun owners and enthusiasts, btw, favor the ban, though the gun lobby wants it off) than they were in of protecting the American people from Al Qaeda operatives having assault weapons.
I mean, let’s call it like it is.
tdog
Why should we be worried about terrorist coming to America to kill Americans? The Bush administration and NRA lobbyist just gave approval for Americans to do it. Osama is laughing himself fuzzy right now.
You do realize that the “assault weapon ban” didn’t remove a single existing faux-assault weapon or “high-capacity” magazine that people owned before the idiotic law went into effect, don’t you?
The law didn’t ban real assault weapons (full auto), which were already controlled under prior law. It banned weapons with stylistic design elements that made them look like assault weapons.
It was like the Safe Streets Race Car Ban, which would ban any vehicle that had decals, spoilers, mag wheels, or scoop-type air intakes. “Too many of our dear children are being slaughtered by hot-rodder’s allowed to run their race cars on the public roads. This bill will put a stop to the massacres occuring on our highways.”
It doesn’t matter how big a spoiler, how wide the mag wheels, how tall the air scoop, or how many decals you slap on a Ford Taurus, it ain’t a race car until you replace the guts (engine, drive train, suspension) with something that will get up over, say, 150 mph.
Likewise, it doesn’t matter whether you stick on a pistol grip, folding stock, 15- or 30-round magazine, it ain’t an “assault weapon” until you replace the guts (receiver or action) with something that will fire more than one shot with a single trigger pull.
As far as the “high-capacity” magazine part of the ban went, I think you will find very few, if any, instances where the police took out a bad guy while he was swapping magazines. (And if you can, I’m sure the activist community branded the cops “murderers” because they killed somebody whose gun was empty.) For, say, the standard 9mm Beretta, the marginal difference between carrying two spare 10-round clips vs carrying one spare pre-ban 15-round clip is minimal in the time it takes to fire 30 rounds.
In October 1994, a nutcase with a semiauto version of an AK47 started shooting at the White House. As soon as he ran out of ammo, three tourists decked him while he was changing magazines. Woulda gotten decked a lot sooner if he’d had a smaller magazine.
OK, that’s one. I’ll revise and extend my remarks: “I think you will find very(?) few —— instances where the police took out a bad guy while he was swapping magazines.” [Strikethrough tag didn’t work].
The incident with Francisco Martin Duran is interesting in that it seemes to be a pretty clear case of attempted suicide by cop (specifically Secret Service and/or Park Police):…On October 17, [Duran’s wife, Ingrid] contacted the FBI in Colorado Springs. Ingrid Duran informed the FBI that Duran had been missing for two weeks. She also reported that Duran had called her on October 15, 1994, stating that he was preparing to do something drastic. During that conversation, Duran stated that he would be killed in the “assault” that he was planning. He refused to tell her where he was headed, although she believed that he was in Texas or elsewhere in the central time zone of the United States……When the gunfire stopped, the officer saw Duran reach toward his left coat pocket. As the officer neared the fence, he pointed his weapon at Duran. Before he could shoot, he saw a citizen lunge toward Duran. The officer held his fire, holstered his weapon, and climbed over the fence. He and a sergeant, who ran down Pennsylvania Avenue from the Northwest Gate, were the first two officers to reach Duran. The officer held Duran to the ground while ordering the citizens to move away from the area. He heard one of the citizens say, “Thanks for not shooting me.” Duran then responded, “I wish you had shot me.”……Duran was placed under arrest and transported to a Secret Service holding area at the Northwest Gate. Upon searching him, the Secret Service recovered a one-page, handwritten note identifying himself and his wife and directing the Secret Service to his vehicle, stating that it was parked near the White House…
Source: White House Security Review Public Report (WHSRPR)
Duran wasn’t shooting at any of the people near him. And, if the WaPo’s description of the videotape, is accurate, Duran “appeared to be fumbling with an ammunition clip, trying to reload the gun” when he was tackled by Harry Rakosky. This is actually consistent with the WHSRPR, which states that after he was tackled and officers arrived, “[t]he officer recovered a magazine from Duran’s coat pocket loaded with thirty rounds of live ammunition.”
If Duran had been carrying the smaller 10-round SKS magazines, instead of a the 30-round bananna clip, its quite likely it wouldn’t have gotten hung-up in his pocket, and there probably wouldn’t have been enough time for anyone to tackle him before he reloaded and started shooting again. I’d like to actually see the video to see how long he was “fumbling” around before he got tackled.
I’ll also repeat that pre-ban magazines were not confiscated during the time the “Assault Weapons Ban” (AWB) was in effect and that 55-round SKS magazines have been selling for $50 to $80 during the entire period.
29 rounds were recovered from the White House grounds. It can be assumed that Duran fired 30 or 31 (full mag plus one chambered). No one was hit.
Would the AWB have prevented him from firing the more than 10 before he was tackled? It didn’t. The AWB went into effect a month-and-a-half before Duran opened fire on the White House. In fact, the AWB was one of the things he was pissed about.
Strangely enough, it may be the case that Duran’s choice of 30-round magazines actually saved a life — his. Back to the WaPo article: “If Rakosky had not tackled Duran, Secret Service Officer Carl Persons would have shot the gunman in the back, the officer testified at Duran’s trial.” Getting that bulky 30-rounder caught in his pocket gave Rakosky the time to tackle him, possibly saving his life.
I should also point out that the assault weapons ban was a political death sentence for many Congressional Democrats in 1994 who supported it (at least polls after the fact showed that).
I think you misconstrue where I was going with this: obviously, bad-ass weapons will be available to the real bad miscreants one way or another– either smuggled in illegally, or via those that were around pre-1994. I did not purport to be an expert on the subject, which I have little doubt, L.P. is (I have said it before: I know better than to get into an argument on details with you!)
We are allegedly in a war on terror. We are randomly locking up furriners, we are holding citizens in camera, without counsel, charge or trial, we are running gulags, and we have invaded a foreign country– all in the name of making it HARDER for terrorists to strike at us HERE.
It strikes me that a measure– even if largely symbolically– that makes it EASIER for terrorists to strike at us– is simply a bad idea, right about now. And frankly, Al Qaeda operatives DID tend to go for low hanging fruit– they went for the easy-to-execute plans. Making it easier for THEM to get assault weapons makes it far more likely they will get assault weapons in the U.S.
Look for this to build as an issue in Congressional races; Kerry will probably not do too much with this, particularly as Bush promised to sign an extension of the ban (though, his friends in the House made sure he didn’t have to!)
It could be much simpler. Crime is the one area where American society has not gone significantly downhill since January 2001, and Bush is trying to remedy this oversight.