Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Since it worked so swimmingly before . . .

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 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.
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.

So spare us your phony "justifications" for your ban, Carolyn, and talk to us about those "other purposes."

3 comments:

straightarrow said...

not one to let a tragedy go unexploited,

DUH! She sure didn't fail to capitilize on her husband's murder. Her husband, who was helpless and became a victim with other helpless people because they obeyed the gun control laws that decreed they be helpless.

Is she remarried? Perhaps she is hoping to make another husband helpless enough to get murdered. She might be able to ride the second one to the Senate.

Or maybe she is envious of women whose husbands aren't helpless and could or have survived maniacal assault because they were armed. Could it be she is doing what she can to get other wives' husbands killed. How sick is that?

Those are the only two explanations that could have any chance of being true. She has already seen what happens to the helpless. That's how she became a widow.

Oh, wait a minute. There is one more possible explanation. She could be mad as a hatter.

45superman said...

That last explanation sounds pretty promising.

hairy hobbit said...

Is there any way to find out WHEN the philly nutcase got his AK? I would LOOOOOVE to see that it was during the "ban." Yeah, sure it'd get NO airplay, but it'd sure be nice to point out the lies just one more time.

Have I just fallen ill with their disease? I think I just made the same argument they do, "if only we could have "one more" Ew, scary.