Carolyn McCarthy, who absolutely LOVES every restriction on guns she sees (including the so-called NICS "Improvement" ACT, which, oddly enough, the NRA supports--but that's a topic for another day), has introduced a bill that would reinstate the federal ban on so-called "assault weapons."
This ban, of course, was allowed to expire (or "sunset") in 2004. The reason for that is primarily that the ban accomplished absolutely nothing along the lines of saving lives. Pro-civilian disarmament columnist Charles Krauthammer (Washington Post) is no friend to gun ownership, but at least he's honest--he admitted that the real reason for the ban wasn't to save lives, but to pave the way for more bans:
Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. (April 5, 1996)Even Tom Diaz, of the Violence Policy Center, found himself (in a rare moment of forthrightness) forced to admit the law's futility.
If the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another . . . reducing death and injury.None of that matters to Carolyn McCarthy, though. On Tuesday, she introduced H.R. 1022, "To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes" (as David Codrea, at War on Guns, points out--what "other purposes"?).
Congresscritter Carolyn, like most civilian disarmament advocates, is not one to let a tragedy go unexploited, and is trying to use the shootings in the old Philadelphia Naval Shipyard as justification for more gun restrictions.
In Philadelphia, a gunman opened fire on his colleagues using an AK-47 assault rifle he legally purchased. These dangerous weapons, which are intended to hit multiple targets in a short period of time, were allowed back on our streets when the federal ban on assault weapons expired in 2004. The deaths in Philadelphia could have been prevented if Congress had done its job of protecting the homeland and renewed the assault weapons ban.I'm not going to get into all the arguments against such a ban--such arguments have been covered here and elsewhere a million times. The point I would like to make is that the murderer's victims had all been bound hand and foot with rope and tape--the supposedly hyper-lethal nature of so-called "assault weapons" had nothing to do with why those men died. They died because they incurred the wrath of an unstable person who was willing to kill those who angered him, and because they were apparently not armed themselves, and were thus unable to mount effective resistance.
I have again introduced legislation to permanently ban assault weapons. These weapons have no practical use. They are not used by hunters for sport or by individuals for self-defense. They are intended to kill as many individuals as possible in a short amount of time and have no place on our streets. The unfortunate situation in Philadelphia could have been avoided if Congress stood up to the gun lobby in 2004.
So spare us your phony "justifications" for your ban, Carolyn, and talk to us about those "other purposes."