Today's JPFO Alert notes that a "ban" that only means that the government isn't buying the "banned" item for you is one gun owners could get behind.
A nitpicking, irrelevant distinction? I don't think so. Look at it this way--what if proposals to ban private citizens' ownership of so-called "assault weapons" meant only that the federal government would not be subsidizing all or part of the purchase price? What if attempts to "ban" .50 caliber rifles were only attempting to clarify that it will be the responsibility of the aspiring rifle owner, and of no one else, to pay for it? What if the abandoned (for now) attempt on the part of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to "ban" M855 ammunition simply meant that the federal government could not give it to us for nothing?
Stumble it!
2 comments:
Interesting thoughts here. I honestly hadn't thought of the "ban" on assault weapons that way. Thanks for sharing your insight on this.
The distinction between a "ban" and refusing to provide something for free is important, although leftists either don't grasp it, or intentionally distort the issue.
In the Hobby Lobby case, the employer provided medical insurance that covered contraceptives, but not abortifacients. Progressives whined that the women were being denied access to birth control. But they weren't. They could still buy the "morning after pill" over-the-counter, but they would have to pay for it themselves.
Similarly, there is no ban on local police having military-type equipment. If, for example, the LAPD needs automatic rifles for their S.W.A.T. team, they can buy them from Colt or Heckler & Koch. Or, if they need an MRAP vehicle, they can legally buy it from the manufacturer. But the Defense Department won't necessarily provide the equipment for free.
That said, I think concerns about local law enforcement having such equipment are over-rated. An honest citizen who owns an AR-15 is less likely to commit a crime than a criminal with a pen knife. Similarly, a good cop with an AR-15 and a 16-shot pistol is less likely to abuse his authority than a bad cop with a .38 revolver. And armored vehicles may be needed in riots, dealing with barricaded snipers, and rescuing victims in "hot zones." (In the North Hollywood gunfight, LAPD had to borrow AR-15's from a sporting goods store, and they had to borrow an armored truck from a private security guard company.)
Obama and his cheerleaders in the MSM want you to think that we have an epidemic of trigger-happy, heavily armed cops running around shooting innocent African-American children for sport. The facts don't support that meme, though.
"Unarmed teen" Michael Brown turned out to be a violent thug who was justifiably shot by a cop in self-defense. Eric Garner died of medical complications caused by his own obesity. Tamir Rice pointed a realistic-looking toy gun at a cop. (If he had been run over while chasing his baseball into the street, would we ban cars?) And no one knows enough about Freddie Gray to draw conclusions yet. And none of those cases involved armored vehicles or assault weapons.
The idea that local police are out of control is being pushed to justify more federal oversight of local law enforcement. Al Sharpton has even called for abolishing local police departments and having a federal police force replace them.
Ironically, though, if you look at real cases of law enforcement abuses (Waco, Ruby Ridge), they were usually committed by federal agencis (FBI, ATF), not the local cops.
Post a Comment