With a lot less hoopla than I expected, the incredibly stupid 1994 “assault weapons ban” was allowed to expire today. It actually banned nothing that it’s supporters claimed it banned. Automatic weapons were banned in 1934. This ban only included guns that LOOKED like military style weapons. In fact, many military style rifles are of a smaller caliber than most rifles used to hunt deer. Before the ban, it was legal to own AK-47’s, Tec-9’s and Uzi’s as long as they were modified to be semi-automatic. Semi-auto AK-47’s are no more deadly, or assault-ish than a Remington 30-06.
The one thing the ban included that I did not like was a cap on capacity. During the ban, a gun was not allowed to be manufactured to hold more than 10 rounds. Since that has been lifted, “High-capacity” magazines, holding 30 rounds or more are now legal again. Considering reload time on a magazine-fed firearm is very quick, this was also a relatively minor thing, but still too far. I believe that self-defense is a God-given right. If someone comes into my home intending to harm me or my family, I have the right to take the necessary measures to stop them. If this means lethal force, then I’m sorry, but I have to exercise that right. I often ask my anti-gun friends if they really believe that the police will be able to help them once an intruder enters their home. Will the bad guy heed your request to have a seat on the couch until the police arrive? I don’t think so.
In typical leftist fashion, the media coverage has been full of lies in regards to this ban sunsetting. Take this story for instance.
Just over a year after the San Francisco shootings, President Clinton signed Feinstein’s bill into law. It banned the sale of 19 specific semiautomatic weapons and ammunition clips of 10 rounds or more.
Loopholes allowed manufacturers to keep many weapons on the market simply by changing their names or altering some of their features or accessories. And because existing weapons and large ammo clips were protected by a “grandfather” provision, many pre-ban guns remained in use.
Which is it? 19 specific semiautomatic weapons, or “many weapons”? Those “Loopholes” are all that there was to keep hunting rifles on the market.
Studies done by pro- and anti-gun groups as well as the Justice Department show conflicting results on whether the ban helped reduce crime.
Any time the leftist media doesn’t like the results of a “study”, they merely question the results. Actually, I’m surprised they didn’t find some skewed study that was twisted to support the gun ban, use it, and ignore all facts to the contrary. The truth is, always has been, and always will be that more guns mean less crime.
They also fail to mention the true intent of the 2nd amendment. It wasn’t for shooting dinner, it was for shooting tyrants.
UPDATE: NRO has a great column up about the death of the ban, systematically debunking the myths put out by the anti-gun, pro-ban crowd. – Hat Tip: No King but Jesus!
The county sheriff was on TV last night. He pretty much said the ban was worthless…. Criminals will have assualt rifles whether they are banned or not. He also went on a little distribe as far as how the law did little but make some people feel good, but had zero effect on availability anyhow.
They put that on the TV? Seems like common sense to me, but not very PC. You must live in an area that is a bit more conservative than the average American Metro area.
The only effect I’ve seen on availability is that guns and accessories under the ban cost a ton more than non-banned stuff. Hi-Cap magazines, for instance, were 3-5+ times more expensive than 10 rounders.