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.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

So . . . what does the VPC think of Joe Biden?

When it comes to those involved with either side of the gun rights vs. citizen disarmament debate, what Joe Biden is most known for is his obsession with banning so-called "assault weapons." By boasting of being "the guy who originally wrote the assault weapons ban" of '94, and by introducing (last fall) a S. 2237, with a word for word reprise of the '94 ban language, Biden leaves little doubt that he is bound and determined to ban vast numbers of some of the most popular firearms in the country.

For the VPC, though, that might not be enough. The VPC believes that the reason the "assault weapons" ban accomplished nothing is that it didn't go far enough.

Mr. TOM DIAZ (Violence Policy Center): If the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another in terms of our objective, which is reducing death and injury and getting a particularly lethal class of firearms off the streets. So if it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass.
Tough crowd, eh, Joe? You write a ban, get it passed in a bill, get the bill signed into law, getting the hell kicked out of your political party in the process, and people say you're still not doing enough to disarm the citizenry.

By the way, speaking of the VPC, is there some kind of "citizen disarmament writer's strike" going on without my knowledge? Their website is recycling materiel from 1999. Isn't there enough stuff to talk about from this millennium, without resorting to advocating the end of hunting with rifles*?

Maybe Biden will get on that.

* The VPC claims a material difference between hunting rifles and "sniper rifles," but even if there is such a difference, and it can be identified legislatively, they want to ban all ammunition that can penetrate police body armor--all centerfire rifle ammo, in other words. Sounds like the end of hunting with rifles, to me.

4 comments:

the pistolero said...

The VPC claims a material difference between hunting rifles and "sniper rifles,"

Apparently the New York Daily News didn't get that memo...
"Three "bigoted meth heads," armed with high-powered sniper weapons, were consumed by a seething hatred of Barack Obama, federal authorities said Tuesday.
"Authorities recovered a terrifying arsenal that could have been used in a shocking attack: a Remington 270 sniper rife, a Ruger 22-250 sniper rifle, boxes of Remington and Winchester ammo, two-way radios, bulletproof vests, camouflage and wigs."

I could have sworn the weaponry these breathless reporters speak of were little more than garden-variety hunting rifles, you know, the kinds the gun-grabbers say they'll protect...

Thirdpower said...

Don't forget who provided funding for the VPC in 1999.

With most of their current funding going towards Josh's salary, I'm surprised they can even pay their internet bill.

45superman said...

Good catch, Pistolero.

45superman said...

With most of their current funding going towards Josh's salary, I'm surprised they can even pay their internet bill.

Josh needs to get that gun store going ;-).