Senate keeps assault weapons safe
Lots of pissed off leftys on the interwebs this afternoon when news got out that Harry Reid won't bring the assault weapons ban to the floor. Me, I've been preparing for that disappointment from the beginning. No way he was going to find 60 votes. He says they can't even get 40 because of all the Dem defections.
Shouldn't be a big surprise. Look at the what DiFi's bill would do:
Feinstein's bill would impose a ban on the sale and manufacture of more than 150 types of semi-automatic weapons with military-style features. Her measure was one of four bills approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee over the last two weeks.You're not just fighting the NRA here, it's a battle against the entire gun industry lobby. I do think they should try to add it as an amendment though and require a roll call so every single one of the bought off Senators has to go on record with a yes or no vote. No, not holding the breath for it.
Meanwhile, all is not lost. There's some good reforms that could very well pass.
The three other gun control bills approved by Judiciary are: a measure requiring universal background checks, a measure aimed at increasing security at schools, and a bill cracking down on the illegal trafficking and straw purchasing of firearms.Not that keen on the school security thing. Figuring it's about as effective a protection as TSA at the airport. That one will probably pass though, because the parents need some security theater. And if we can come out of this with the background checks and cracking down on straw purchases, it would be big win. I'm be happy to get that much myself. [graphic via]
posted by Libby Spencer at 6:31 PM
6 Comments:
" weapons with military-style features"
Unfortunately, that's the premise that helped to make a joke out of the last AWB. For the most part, those features were entirely cosmetic and in the minds of many supporters thereof, it's the scariness of the appearance that matters. Ban military weapons? Sure but basically we already do and yet we're not telling people, most of whom already know and think we're nuts.
I try hard to avoid the deliberately misleading terminology many Democrats are using and it makes us seem like extremists, if not ignoramuses to people who know a lot about guns -- maybe everybody outside large cities.
And of course we have people like the group I saw on the news a week ago, protesting "weapons on airplanes" the leader of which was waving a 9 inch hunting knife when all the TSA was allowing was a ONE INCH folding knife.
And as to extending background checks -- although I and the public seem to be OK with that, one such proposal demands that antique weapons be included so if you want to give your father, for instance a gift of a 16th century matchlock, you have to file a mountain of paperwork and put him through a background check. Are we really seeing flintlock murders today -- really? Or have we been fighting extremists so long we don't notice extremism when we do it ourselves?
I'm not sure it isn't more than a battle against lobbyists. I think the American People as a whole think we've gone overboard on many things for many years and none of this would, as written, ever pass Congress.
So I'm for background checks, but checks reinforced by requiring that the databases be scrupulously updated and let's forget about regulating medieval weapons and let's stop kidding ourselves about that "sniper rifle" being any different or any more dangerous than any other Remington 7000 and stop trying to kid others about some weapon being "military style" when it's all style and no substance. Maybe we'll be able to get something reasonable and effective passed if we're not so desperate for anything we can call gun control.
That's just my opinion, but of course I have more guns. . .
I thought there was an exemption for antique guns. And I only use the assault gun terminology because it's become the public shorthand. I've actually never cared about banning them. Hell my family owns them and apparently they're fun to shoot. I would have liked to see some restriction on high capacity clips. Not sure what. Maybe restrict to shooting ranges and not allow them on the streets.
There's an exception for guns made before 1898 and for some reproductions of antique guns. Muzzle loaders can be sold through the mail. That scares some people who like to imagine scenarios, I guess, even though a crossbow is more dangerous than some of these because they're silent and can be more accurate.
I've read about proposals to do away with that, which would require me to have a background check - which I already have done - if I inherit great grandfathers civil war musket. Do we really need to humor paranoid phobics like this? I like to think that in the absence of data confirming a threat, we don't need to ban or regulate anything we can imagine.
Limiting magazine capacity for hunting does work, so perhaps limiting them on guns carried for protection might also. I don't think many people want to use 30 round boxes on a concealed weapon since you can't conceal them, but the danger is in people who don't give a damn about the law and many of whom intend to die.
My thesis all along is that any gun is dangerous - and car, plane, boat, motorcycle, kitchen knife and we should concentrate on people more than on descriptions.
I have a civilian AK which I got conned into buying by my Yachtsnot friends and I'm going to sell it because I've never used it. It's not something to have fun at the range with and ammo is too expensive. But thanks to all the commotion, the prices have gone up more than my stock portfolio and I can make some money. Shoulda bought a bunch of them! I think the arms industry loves bans because they're great for sales.
Really, I'm tired of the extremism and the hysteria and emotionalism in the media on both sides. Does anyone really make good decisions in such an atmosphere? Of course not but we don't make any decisions unless we're half nuts about something.
Sadly unreasonable fear will drive action sooner than sober thought.
If we can mandate a waiting period for gun purchases, why not a waiting period for legislation. Just a thought.
Don't know about that Fogg. The more you give the idiots in Congress, the more they screw the bills up with amendments.
Post a Comment
<< Home