Second Ammendment Under Fire

Since for the fourth day in a row, Iggy just seems too beaten down to provide us with any topics of conversation, I thought I'd take a crack at a more general topic; specifically, the anticipated upcoming assault on our second amendment rights by the Obama administration and congressional Democrats.

In the fall of 2008, as the frightening prospect of an Obamination became inevitable, the sale of firearms, ammunition and firearms parts began to rise sharply, with significant upticks immediately after the November elections and presidential coronation in January. What began as a swell has turned into a tsunami of panic buying and stockpiling reminiscent of the bank runs at the beginning of The Great Depression. The inevitable supply and demand result is both a scarcity of firearms and ammunition (not including breech-loading, single shot, long guns) and an increase in the cost of back-ordered items and whatever table scraps remain available at the retail level. Why the concern? The answer is obvious. We now have a Democrat president in the Oval Office, and a Democrat-controlled congress. The last time this was so was 1993-94, and what happened? Of course, The Assault Weapons Ban; appropriately named as it was an assault on law-abiding Americans' second amendment rights.

First, a little background information. A true assault weapon is one that can fire in fully automatic mode; that is by depressing the trigger, the weapon will continue to fire until it either depletes its ammunition source or the trigger is released. The legal ownership of fully automatic weapons in America has been severely limited since 1934 by the The National Firearms Act, and was further restricted by the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986. When someone hears the words assault weapon, the image of an AK-47 or an M-16 assault rifle usually comes to mind - an image which can be frightening to the uneducated or the indoctrinated.

What the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" did was to make it harder or impossible for Americans to obtain semi-automatic (where each depression of a weapon's trigger results in one round being fired) rifles, shotguns and even certain handguns. Wrapping the legislation in the cloak of a ban on legally obtaining those scary fully automatic weapons was a typical Democrat slight of hand tactic. Beyond the subterfuge of the name, the key word here is legally. As with all gun-control measures, legal restrictions never lead to a reduction of either crimes committed with guns or crime in general. Instead, they lead to a reduction in the number of law-abiding citizens who possess firearms, and usually also lead to an increase in violent crime rates. To turn an Obama phrase, its simply a common sense result. Criminals willing to face twenty-plus year sentences or even the death penalty to commit a robbery, rape or murder are not going to be dissuaded by a one or two year sentence for illegally obtaining a firearm. Instead, they merely end up having an easier time committing their crimes against a disarmed population.

When the 1994 ban was allowed to sunset in 2004, liberals howled in protest, predicting a wave of gun-fueled assaults, robberies, rapes, murders - and that was just by members of Congress! Of course none of their dire predictions came to fruition. This fact was never reported by the left-wing media, a classic example of how media bias is often not just how a story is reported, but whether or not it is even brought to light. This fact has also not stopped Obama from stating that he wants to re-institute the 1994 ban. In fact, the Obama administration has even lied about American-purchased weapons being the source of 90% of the weapons used by warring Mexican drug cartels in an attempt to create a pretext to bring back the ban.

Obama has also supported end-around attempts to institute firearms restrictions on law-abiding citizens without actually legislating against firearms themselves. For example, he has stated that he supports a 500% increase in the current federal ammunition tax of 11%, raising it to 55%. In effect, $100.00 of ammunition which currently has $11.00 of excise taxes applied would jump to $55.00 of excise taxes, raising the retail cost (before any local and state excise or sales tax) for a consumer from $111.00 to $155.00 dollars. Not only would this make ammunition more expensive for individuals, it would drive down the revenues of ammunition producers, making it harder for them to stay in business.

As a U.S. Senator he voted (no, not present) against a bill designed to protect gun manufacturers form frivolous lawsuits crafted not to punish them for any wrong doing, but rather to put them out of business under the guise that they are responsible for the scumbag who uses one of their products to kill a bunch of people during a robbery, for example. That's the same kind of logic which would allow the Kopeckne family to sue General Motors because Ted Kennedy used a Buick to kill their daughter. There are some very interesting facts about Obama's second amendment record here http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1045161.

Sometimes, these end-arounds are instituted at the state level. For example, Massachusetts lawmakers are considering legislation which would require all new handguns sold in the Commonwealth to be unable to fire if there is no magazine inserted into the weapon. Today, automatic handguns are still capable of firing a round left in the chamber, even if the magazine has been ejected. This sounds like "common sense" gun control, correct? Stupid people may assume a gun can not fire if it is not holding a magazine, so let's legislate it so. Who would be against that? It does not violate any second amendment rights, its just a safety rule! The rub is that law-enforcement officers in Massachusetts, as well as everyone else in the world, are still going to want handguns without this limitation. Browning, Beretta, Smith & Wesson and SigSauer are not going to spend millions retooling their production lines to produce the few thousand guns which may be sold in Massachusetts because it is not cost-effective. The result? Virtually no new automatic handguns would be available for sale in the Commonwealth. Mission accomplished!

The recent spate of highly publicized gun violence incidents in Oakland, Pittsburgh and Binghamton will merely embolden those who would rather deprive law-abiding citizens of their rights rather than create laws to punish perpetrators of crimes or heaven forbid - allow more people the right to defend themselves and their fellow citizens. The receptionist who was shot and played possum, enabling her to dial 911 for help is being lauded, correctly, as a hero for her actions. Police arrived on the scene within two minutes of her call, and the local chief of police has stated that her actions saved 30-40 lives, God bless her. That should not stop you from asking how many additional lives would have been saved had she happen to have been armed. The police took only two minutes to arrive on scene; a .45 would have put that coward Voong down in seconds.

At this point, you might be thinking I'm some militia member gun nut. The fact is, at age 39, I had never even fired, let alone owned a gun until two months ago. While I was an avid supporter of second amendment rights, I was one of those people who wondered why people needed so many guns, and why gun owners are against virtually every piece of gun-control legislation. I'm fortunate enough that five years ago, I moved to a location where I should never need one for home defense. However, faced with life in Obamination, I realized that that I could not afford to take the chance that should I ever find myself in that situation at some future point in time, I would no longer be able to legally obtain one. As with anything I do in life, I did significant research to determine which gun or guns would meet my needs, to ensure that I complied with federal and state statutes.

Now informed, I understand that guns are a lot like tools. Each has a specific task, and you don't use a hammer when you need a screwdriver. To put in in golfing terms, you don't use a putter to tee off. I also understand the resistance to anti-gun legislation. First, each new law is an intentionally laid brick in the wall that liberals are trying to build between law-abiding Americans and the second amendment. It's ironic, that liberals have used the "slippery slope" argument so often to justify some of their more unappetizing values to ordinary Americans, yet when it comes to gun control, claim that no such slope exists. Make no mistake about it, it exists, and the left has been pouring fifty-five gallon drums of 10W-30 on it for years.

A second reason to oppose most anti-gun control legislation is for practical reasons. Think back to that Massachusetts legislation that would force new automatic handguns to not be functional when it not containing a magazine. Now, let's assume a homeowner is engaged in a gun battle with three criminals during a home invasion. As a law-abiding citizen of the People's Republic of Massachusetts, he is armed with (for example) a .45 caliber automatic with a ten round clip - ten rounds being the legal limit in Massachusetts. The criminals are armed with whatever they want, legal or otherwise, because they are criminals. Mid-confrontation, the homeowner, not knowing how many rounds he has left, has a brief moment to change magazines - a process which even the best-trained individual requires 2-3 seconds to accomplish in the best of circumstances. Should one of his attackers suddenly appear in the midst of this change, being able to fire that round still in the chamber would sure come in handy, wouldn't it?

Ultimately, it comes down to the goal of the anti-gun lobby. They don't want gun-control enacted because they think it will curb violence - they know that all of the evidence is to the contrary. What they really want is a nation where the only people who have guns are the police and the military. Before you say that sounds like a good idea, take a gander at these twentieth century statistics. If the left truly wanted to reduce violent crime, they would join with groups like the NRA in supporting things like twenty year sentences for people who commit a crime with a gun, instead of trying to punish innocent. law-abiding citizens for the crimes of others.

It simply comes down to the fact that liberals know that as long as Americans have the ability to defend their rights, their property and themselves, the left will not be able to impose their socialist regime upon us. The second amendment was not included in the Bill of Rights to allow Americans to hunt, or defend themselves from criminals. It was intended to ensure that Americans would always have the ability to defend themselves from, and if necessary, overthrow, a tyrannical government. Remember, without guns, we'd still be subjects, not citizens.