Obama Calls On Congress To Ban Assault Weapons And High Capacity Magazines
BY Herschel Smith
11 years, 11 months ago
As if you didn’t know it was coming.
President Obama on Wednesday urged Congress to vote on measures banning the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines and requiring background checks before any firearm sale, part of an emerging White House response to a massacre last week at a Connecticut elementary school.
[ … ]
In an effort to demonstrate the shift in political thinking since the Newtown shooting, Democrats have tapped Rep. Mike Thompson (Calif.), a lifelong hunter and gun rights activist, to lead their gun-related efforts. Thompson said Wednesday that several Democratic proposals “certainly make sense,” including the ban on high-capacity magazines.
“I’ve been a hunter all my life, and there’s no reason to have a magazine that holds 30 shells,” Thompson said.
I don’t care that he is alleged to have been a hunter his whole life. That brings with it absolutely no authority to me. He is a nobody. And he is no gun rights activist. But I guess no one who is hunting really does need 30 rounds in a single magazine if you’re hunting regulated game such as deer. If you’re hunting feral hogs you want as many rounds as you can get, and if you are defending yourself against a home invasion, you want the best weapon suited for the purpose, including a high capacity magazine, just like Mr. Stephen Bayezes who saved his life with one.
Here is a prediction. The majority of shooters who are intent on harming people choose multiple firearms (including a mix of guns), or in the future will choose to fabricate their own high capacity magazine if they want it for their nefarious aims. This ban won’t affect the level of gun violence in the least. It will, however, increase the power and control of the federal government, and that’s its purpose.
On December 20, 2012 at 7:21 pm, Nick the Canuck said:
I recently got into a debate with an Aussie friend over the cries for gun bans following mass shootings. I won’t go too much into the long string of obfuscations, hypotheticals, extremes and accusations made against me in that discussion. Suffice it to say it would be nice if the public discourse were based more on facts, context and reason than the endless diatribes and reused garbage I keep hearing from ban advocates. It’s like playing whack-a-mole. Knock down an argument like the idea bolt-action and breach loading weapons are sufficient for home defense (I wish I were making that up) and suddenly you’re asked to imagine having to identify your child’s body after a shooting, as though it demonstrates in itself anything relevant to the debate. I commend you for continuing to knock them down over and over, but I wish I knew more folks around here who were willing to have a serious conversation about it. I’m tired of the assumption that I advocate violent crime because I question the efficacy of gun control.
The ’94 Assault Weapon’s ban expired 8 years ago and the DOJ’s own studies do not support that it had any impact on rates of violent crime. Congress tried and failed several times to resurrect it since. A school shooting does not statistical relevance make, nor do the number of media outlets plumbing it for ratings. No one’s advocating hunting with Uzis or encouraging killing sprees. No one’s advocating violent crime. I don’t believe any ban can be justified until a consensus is reach that it will have a substantial, demonstrable and positive impact. I agree it’s not the only issue as you’ve repeatedly illustrated, but I think it’s a fair starting point to breaking through the barrier of fear some seem to be hiding behind.