Friday, September 10, 2010
Shades Of 1994- Democrats Poised To Pass More Gun Control
In September 1994, the Democrat majority in Congress, realizing that they were about to lose their majority, rushed the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" into effect. Now, in September 2010, Congressional Democrats, realizing they are about to lose their majority, are preparing to do it again.
The 1994 law, which illegalized the further purchase of firearms possessing certain cosmetic features (namely, a carrying handle, heat shield, protruding grip, flash suppressor, or adjustable buttstock) and the further sale of magazines holding more than ten cartridges, stood until 2004, when the law sunset without renewal. It still stands as state law in several states, including here in New York.
Predictably, the law has had no effect on crime whatsoever. It has, however, denied firearms most suited to home defense to residents of high-crime cities. Most professional firearms instructors agree that a short, high-capacity rifle of intermediate caliber is the type of weapon most suitable for repelling home-invasion robberies, since such a firearm combines four qualities not found together in any other type of firearm: compactness needed to maneuver in the confines of a home; ability to penetrate body armor often used by such criminals; low risk of over-penetration which would endanger other occupants of the home and neighbors; and a low probability of needing to reload during a prolonged fight, which often proves disastrous to the defender.
Also predictable is the fact that fewer than 0.2% of "assault weapons" have ever been used in the commission of a crime, according to the FBI.
Then again, we shouldn't have to provide justification for exercising a Constitutional right.
Socialists, of course, have their own (thoroughly discredited) justifications and statistics to throw around- in favor of limiting the exercise of a Constitutional right. But I won't dignify sophistry here.
I will, however, quote Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would surrender essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety".