The most extreme among gun-grabbing politicians are not masking their intentions now.
The Washington Examiner reports that liberal Congressman David Cicilline has introduced legislation that is so bad and broadly written, it could technically ‘disarm’ every American citizen across the country:
The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, the legislation bans the sale, transfer, production, and importation of semi-automatic shotguns with features such as a pistol grip or detachable stock, and ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.
Cicilline’s legislation names 205 specific firearms that are prohibited, including the AK-47 and AR-15.
Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?
“Assault weapons were made for one purpose. They are designed to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time. They do not belong in our communities,” said Cicilline. “I am proud to introduce the Assault Weapons Ban with the support of leaders in law enforcement. It’s on all of us to end this carnage.”
“Banning assault weapons isn’t a Democratic idea, nor is it new; President Reagan supported the initial ban, which expired in 2004. Most Americans support the assault weapons ban. Now it’s time for Congress to listen and pass sensible legislation to get these weapons of war off our streets.”
Cicilline has already found a kindred co-sponsor of the bill the form of Congressman Ted Deutch, who is claiming there are 150 member of Congress ready to support the bill:
Today I joined @RepCicilline and 150+ of my colleagues to introduce the assault weapons ban. It’s time for Congress to listen to the will of a majority of Americans and pass sensible legislation to get these weapons of war off our streets. #NeverAgain #MSDStrong
— Rep. Ted Deutch (@RepTedDeutch) February 26, 2018
In another statement Deutch ridiculously says:
“Americans don’t own tanks or missiles; so why should our streets be flooded with weapons of war made for the sole purpose of killing people?”
Differentiating ‘Semi’ From ‘Fully’.
Understanding the difference between ‘Full’ Automatic and ‘Semi’ Automatic is so easy even a Liberal can do it (maybe),
Fully-Automatic (adj.) Designating a system, device, or machine whose function is completely automatic; specifically (of a firearm) that loads itself and fires continuously.
Semi-Automatic (adj.) Having a bullet in position and ready for firing when the trigger is pulled.
Or how about in laymen terms? As Politifact explains:
In simplest terms, “semi-automatic” refers to any firearm designed to fire one bullet with one trigger squeeze, then automatically reload the chamber with a cartridge from a magazine and be ready to fire again.
The term applies to a whole range of modern firearms, from hunting and target rifles all the way up to so-called black rifles that look like what a soldier would carry. Gun control arguments often focus on the black rifles, but the differences between those and any other semi-automatic rifle often are only cosmetic. Semi-automatic guns all largely operate the same way.
Automatic weapons, which are often described as machine guns, are different, in that squeezing the trigger once fires cartridges repeatedly until the shooter releases it.
While semi-automatic rifles are widely available, fully automatic weapons are not. You can still buy an automatic weapon, but their sale and ownership is highly regulated and exceptionally expensive.
Automatic weapons sales have been restricted in the United States since the 1934 National Firearms Act was passed. Regulations put in place in 1986 made it much more difficult for civilian buyers to get an automatic weapon.
Steven Seagal explains the difference:
The definition of semi-automatic is every time you depress the trigger, one round will go off… Thats what I want you to do, one round at a time.
The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles. Fact.
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) December 3, 2012
But There Are Always Politicians.
The words in the 2nd Amendment are clear: “the to right keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
American citizens have the right to own and carry firearms. The 2nd Amendment is not simply about muskets and bayonets, it is the constitutional insurance policy guaranteeing that the rights of a free people are protected by a populace that has the means to defend themselves from a tyrannical government.
Some get that…some do not.
Florida lawmakers shot down an amendment on Monday that would have banned semi-automatic “assault” weapons like the AR-15 used in the Parkland school massacre.
They did, however, agree to raise the legal age for purchasing a firearm to 21 — and approved legislation that would give teachers the right to carry guns in school, NBC-2 reports.
Senators also agreed to confiscate guns from people with mental health issues, in addition to raising the legal buying age and giving teachers the right to carry.
The lawmaker told the Sun Sentinel that he and other black fathers across Florida will now have to include teachers when talking to their children about how to act around armed authority figures.
A similar packaged set of reforms is scheduled to be taken up by the House Rules Committee.
Then on the far other-end of the debate spectrum is California. Not surprisingly, their solution is more restrictive gun laws.
California lawmakers on Monday proposed 10 new gun control bills to the state’s nation-leading gun restrictions in the wake of the latest mass shooting in Florida.
The proposals to be considered later this spring include expanding the definition of assault rifles; expanding gun violence restraining orders; letting individuals block themselves from buying guns; and cracking down on homemade “ghost guns.”
One bill would expand California’s assault weapon definition to include high-powered semi-automatic rifles without fixed magazines, though most .22 rifles would be excluded. The current definition requires the rifle to have things like a pistol grip or other military-style fixtures. Estimated half-million owners would have to register approximately two million guns with the state Department of Justice if the bill becomes law.
Among other proposals:
–A companion bill by Assemblywoman Blanca Rubio of Baldwin Park would let judges issue such orders orally, based on statements by police, if there is an urgent need. Her second bill would impose lifetime firearm bans for those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.
–Law enforcement agencies would have to put information on recovered firearms into a state database under a bill by (Bill) Quirk.
–A bill by Assemblyman Rob Bonta of Oakland would allow individuals to add themselves to the state’s “do not sell” list if they feel they might be a danger to themselves or others.
–The state would require background checks for anyone buying a key part that is used to assemble an assault weapon at home under a bill by Assemblyman Mike Gipson of Carson.
–Public agencies hosting gun buy-backs would be barred from issuing gift cards from retailers who sell guns under a bill by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher of San Diego.
–Assemblyman Evan Low of Silicon Valley has two bills. One would remove firearms from those who have been hospitalized for suicide prevention twice in one year. The second would require law enforcement to send bullet casings to a central registry where they might be linked to firearms or other crime scenes.
But these proposed bills are not just redundant, they are overkill.
California already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country on the books.
His division is the only law enforcement agency in the country assigned specifically to track down and take guns from felons, the mentally ill and others whose Second Amendment rights have been curtailed in court because of public safety concerns. That is, the people who even the National Rifle Association says should not have guns, a statement echoing in the aftermath of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. The program makes California’s gun-control policy perhaps the most aggressive in the nation.
A dozen years ago, the state set up a database that flags law enforcement officials when a registered gun owner is convicted of a felony, deemed mentally ill, has received a restraining order or committed one of about 37 qualifying misdemeanors.
The list is known as the Armed Prohibited Persons System, and while it has failed to prevent mass shootings in San Bernardino, Isla Vista and other cities in the state, it has taken tens of thousands of guns out of the hands of people prohibited from having them.
State officials say the kind of restraining order that a family or law enforcement official is allowed to seek here against someone of concern might have landed Nikolas Cruz, the alleged school shooter in Parkland, on the list if one existed in Florida. That will never be known.
The work of Richardson’s agents is overwhelming, with the number of guns and “prohibited” growing faster than the under-resourced teams can take them off the street. So is the ingenuity of those selling guns, and those making guns, and those owning guns, legally or not.
There are 10,226 people on the list statewide. Of those, about 2,000 are in Los Angeles County.
California once again proves that they are more concerned about guns than they are about the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
As recent events have shown, existing gun laws are simply not being enforced. And the same government overlords who continue to drop the ball are the same ones that want to add more laws. More incompetence should not garner more authority. And in some places, gun confiscation is quickly becoming a reality despite the law:
Some would likely favor a ban on private firearm ownership altogether. That doesn’t strike me as necessary even under the most ideal conditions. But the central point is that the NRA has shaped the debate in such a way that they cannot unreasonably argue that the policies most gun control groups advocate would only have an effect on the margins. So, what’s the point?
And yes, what is the point? This crimped debate enervates and demoralizes advocates for change since how hard are you really supposed to fight for very minor changes on the margins of gun policy?
Now, as I noted yesterday, the problem isn’t the NRA. It’s that support for unfettered rights to guns has grown tremendously over the last generation and politicians in most parts of the country don’t want to go up against that.
Something like half the privately-owned guns in the world are in the US. The rate of purchase of new guns and ammo has risen dramatically in the last decade. We’re now actively debating things that no civilized country has ever even contemplated – the right to take a semi-automatic weapon into a family restaurant or shopping mall. Meanwhile, mass ownership of guns has become and is becoming more and more deeply embedded into the political culture of a vast segment of the population.
Now, if you’ve read what I’ve written over the years, you know that I despise nothing more than political purism and escapism.
This is what we need on guns. Those of us who see the current situation as not just non-ideal but actually a sort of societal sickness need to start thinking way beyond things like closing the gun show loophole.
In other words, yes, we really do want to take your guns. Maybe not all of them. But a lot of them.
Likewise, liberal Washington Post scribe E.J. Dionne once lauded then-President Obama for attacking Republicans for not supporting a nationwide gun ban similar to the Australia gun confiscation program of the mid-1990s.
“This is something we should politicize,” the President said. “It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic.”
This is something we should politicize. His statement was remarkable for violating the etiquette as to what a leader should say after another slaughter by a deranged gunman and the conventional wisdom about how politicians have to pretend that they are not engaged in politics.
It’s politics, as Obama said, that makes the U.S. “the only advanced country on Earth that sees these kinds of mass shootings every few months,” and politics that leads our learned legislators to pass laws barring the government from “even collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths.”
Congress has legislated mandatory ignorance.
“Politicize” is the right word for another reason: We will not act until politicians start losing elections for opposing even the most modest gun safety measure. We will not act unless political parties that block action lose their majorities. Yes, I am talking about a Republican Party that has completely aligned itself with the interests of gun manufacturers and gun fanatics.
Engaging in politics also means unmasking rationalizations that may sound plausible but are merely intended to justify pathetic pandering to the forces of evasion and inertia. The most debilitating dodge is to claim that nothing can be done, that nothing works. The gun lobby specializes in isolating a given incident and declaring sagely that this or that particular solution would not have prevented it.
Politicizing this struggle means being unrelentingly candid in calling out an American conservative movement that proudly champions law and order but allows itself to be dominated by gun extremists who deride every gun measure that might make our country a little bit safer — no matter how many mass killings we have.
NEWSFLASH: “Down Under Won’t Work Here!”
Whenever there is a gun tragedy, the Progressive Left, as former-President Obama displayed, will always say we need to be more like “Europe” or we need to be more like “Australia”. As National Review reported, the European and Australians now warn against gun confiscation.
In 1996, Australia confiscated guns.
It didn't work there and it wouldn't work in America.http://t.co/ks4wjml3Ch
— National Review (@NRO) October 5, 2015
The BBC reported in October 2017 after the Mandalay Bay concert attack:
Despite the reduction in incidence though, gun violence has not disappeared in Australia.
Many outlawed firearms have been replaced with legal ones.
Australian firearms rights groups say that the laws go too far and restrict personal freedom.
They argue that gun violence was on a downward trajectory before the 1996 laws were passed, and reject any link between lower incidence of gun deaths and the tighter legislation.
The big question…So could it work in the US?
The simple answer is – probably not.
Although Australia does have a long history of hunting and sport, there is no equivalent to America’s Second Amendment right to bear arms here.
So, the illegal gun use is DOWN, the legal gun is UP, and the limitations on personal liberties persist. Is anyone truly shocked?
In addition, Current Australian Ambassador Joe Hockey gives a blunt assessment, recognizing a uniquely American quality; unique in the eyes of the rest of the world. Yet many American progressives refuse to accept:
Australia and the United States are completely different situations, and it goes back to each of our foundings. America was born from a culture of self-defense. Australia was born from a culture of “the government will protect me.” Australia wasn’t born as a result of a brutal war. We weren’t invaded. We weren’t attacked. We weren’t occupied. That makes an incredible difference, even today.
Our histories are completely different. The U.S. had a horrendous civil war, with more casualties than every other war combined. We didn’t have that history. It really went to the core of what it means to defend your people. And so, you have a Second Amendment based on an antiquated view of what it means to be occupied.
But the gun culture is so ingrained in America. I can’t wrap my brain around impulsive buys, no cooling off period, no mental-health checks. I’m stunned there’s not more road rage here given the number of guns.
Australian journalist A. Odysseus Patrick echoes these same sentiments in a recent New York Times op-ed:
The Australian model won’t work in the United States. Here’s why: We Australians have a profoundly different relationship with weapons. Americans love guns. We’re scared of them.
Australians’ and Americans’ different relationship with firearms stems from the role that armed struggle played in their histories. In Australia, we didn’t have one.
We never had a revolution. We never fought foreign troops on our soil. There was no antipodean civil war. From the moment the First Fleet arrived in Botany Bay in 1788 in what is now Sydney, security was provided by the British Army.
The indigenous population was displaced by force of arms, disease and appropriation of land, crimes for which many Australians still feel guilty. Prosperity, universal health care and unemployment benefits helped suppress crime. The few race riots that took place didn’t involve shooting.
Australia’s founding fathers, attempting to unify six colonies, didn’t mention guns in the Constitution. They weren’t worried about government oppression.
Over time, Australians came to view firearms with suspicion. Most Australians have never held one. Recreational shooting is regarded as a fringe sport. Unlike many Americans, who might proudly show off their latest pistol or rifle, Australians who own and enjoy using firearms, like me, try to be discreet.
While people love to point at the similarities between the Aussies and the Yanks, such as the countries being roughly the same size geographically, Ambassador Hockey rightly points out that the founding, history, and ideologies of the two countries are completely different. Australia was established as a penal colony, for goodness sakes.
Additionally, Australia has a population of 24.1 million. Whereas America’s population is 326 million (California is at 39.6 million, Texas has 28.3 million, and Florida’s population is slightly smaller than Australia’s at 20.61 million, but still larger than New York’s 19.7 million).
‘Comrades’ In dis-Arms?
The Founding Fathers never specified which types of firearms the people had the right to ‘bear’. This was deliberate. As was their resistance to putting limits on our rights to 1st Amendment free speech to merely pens and the printing press. Just because extremist groups like the neo-Nazis, ISIS, and the Antifa use the Internet and cable-TV to spew their individual diatribes, does this require the government to pass more laws regulating personal use by banning, restricting, and/or forced individual registration throughout social media?
Afterall, ‘Freedom of Speech’ is merely just one-part of the 1st Amendment, and widespread restrictions have already been implemented on other parts. Or we can listen to China and ban all guns throughout our country too, with the same outcome.