Promised Land Homestead

Assault Weapons Ban

By way of a fellow blogger, I was pointed to President-elect Obama's website where he lays out his plans for "change".  One of the things mentioned under his urban policy plan to deal with gun violence was:

"[Obama and Biden] also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets."

http://www.change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

The reason this caught my attention is because I have come to learn what a useless law the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was, and how it was the start of a subtle campaign by anti-gun lobbiests to slowly chip away at the Second Amendment.  Now, before you think I'm being a conspiracy theorist, hear me out on this one.  I'm not saying President Obama is against the Bill of Rights and wants to take away all our freedoms.  What I am saying is that he interprets the Bill of Rights very differently than I do in some areas.  Referring to the Second Amendment specifically, he even interprets it differently than the U.S. Supreme Court.  Based on everything I can gather from his voting record and statements, he subscribes to the notion that the right to bear arms is tied only to service in a militia.  (Read the majority opinion of the Heller vs. D.C. decision to hear that theory blown out of the water by Justice Scalia).  Because of his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, President Obama supports limiting individual gun rights.  I honestly believe he simply thinks its the only way to deter crime, and he has good intentions.  That doesn't mean it's still not a violation of the right.

So back to the ban itself.  What did it say exactly?  It defined an assault weapon as "semi-automatic firearms  that were developed from earlier fully-automatic weapons (M-16s, AK-47s, etc)."  It went further to detail certain compenents that were outlawed based solely on the fact that the legislators found them "unnecessary".

So why should this concern the average American?  Because for years the anti-gun lobby has tried to convince the American people and our leaders in Washington that the only legitimate use for firearms is hunting.  I have no doubt that they would soon question the legitimacy of hunting as "necessary" one day as well.  But in the meantime, they have tried to squeeze gun rights into applying only to this small group because it's a relatively small group of Americans, and easy to marginalize.  Their problem is that they cannot propose an immediate ban on all guns not related to hunting.  It's too drastic.  They have to start with something obtuse and unusual, like assault weapons.  They try to scare people into thinking assault weapons are somehow more dangerous than other firearms, and question the motives of any American who might want them. 

What they don't tell you is that assault rifles operate EXACTLY like any normal semi-automatic hunting rifle.  There are few differences.  The only noticable one is that assault rifle magazines typically hold more rounds than a hunting rifle.  Should that matter?  A determined assailant could just buy 50 magazines and change them out quicker than greased lightening.  It makes no practical difference.  What they also don't tell you is that "assault weapons" are used in less than 1% of crimes.  Handguns are by far the favorite choice of criminals.  So why not ban handguns?  It's too drastic.  That will eventually come, but first they have to attack something less controversial.

What the assault weapons ban constitutes is a prohibition on an entire class of weapons based solely on the fact that they "look scary".  They are no more dangerous or likely to be used in crimes than other weapons.  The anti-gunners try to apply what they consider to be "common sense" to the 2nd Amendment, but that's not the way our rights were laid out.  They are not subject to "modern interpretation".  They are basic, God-given, and untouchable.  Those who want to limit the right seek to apply the "legitimate use" theory to the 2nd Amendment, but folks, that is not the point of the 2nd Amendment.  It makes no prevision for hunting rifles only.  It does not seek to limit the definition of arms because the founders did not want government to start defining and reinterpreting our rights.  They knew one of the best ways for a tyrannical government to quell rebellion was to disarm the people.  I'm not suggesting armed rebellion.  I'm simply reminding you of the world in which the 2nd  Amendment was drafted.  Let's be clear.  The Constitution does not GIVE us our rights.  Our rights are not dependent upon that document for their existence.  The Constitution exists to PROTECT those inherent rights.

Once assault weapons are banned, the "legitimate use" theory creates a slippery slope that will eventually envelope all firearms, even those designed for hunting.  That's one of the things that makes the anti-gun arguement so laughable.  They believe the 2nd Amendment is tied to service in a militia, so why do they constantly refer to hunting as an acceptable use of a firearm?  Hunting has nothing to do with serving in a milita.  It goes back to what I said earlier.  They can't outlaw all guns at once, so they seek to do it slowly.  The "hunting provision" has to be maintained or their true intentions would be obvious.

I've really really contemplated buying an assault rifle.  They are very expensive, and likely to get more expensive in the future.  It's not that I necessarily want an assault rifle.  I just abhore the idea of my government eventually saying I can't buy one.  I want one as a testimony to my belief in the the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.  Maybe my money would be better spent supporting organizations like the NRA that can actually influence votes in Congress.

One final note.  Below is a picture of a Secret Service detail escorting President-elect Obama to the gym.  Notice what the Secret Service agent is carrying?  That's right.  It's an assault rifle.  Someone tell me why I'm not afforded the right to protect myself with a weapon that the President of the United States is protected with.  Is my life less valuable?

Untitled Comment

9:50 AM, Friday, November 7, 2008 .. Posted by gokings13

You ask: Is your life less valuable.
Yes sir, in the 'gun banners' mind, it is.
AND
YOU sir, are easier to "control" once you are dis-armed.
ALL.......ALL gun-banners are cut from the same Socialist Cloth.
You cannot throw a frog in a boil pot of water and it not notice.
BUT
IF you put the frog in warm water, where the frog is comfortable, and then S L O W L Y turn up the heat.......he will boil and never know it.
Bit by bit, they will take away our rights until one day we will be the Socialist States of America.
Laura

Untitled Comment

3:23 PM, Friday, November 7, 2008 .. Posted by CitySteader

Oh, that get's hubby's and my blood pressure up!!!! We are strong advocates for guns (yes, just guns in general) I am terrified to think that they are stripping away our rights. I absolutely love your point that they are trying to ban military style guns, but not hunting guns (right off the bat) and yet "support" guns for militia use but will weasel us out of our hunting riffles too! It just chaps my hide!!!

Thank You!

9:58 PM, Friday, November 7, 2008 .. Posted by Hisirishgem

Absolutely Wonderful point you made!!

I have never had a gun before. My dad tried to teach me how to hunt when I was younger and I was afraid of the shooting shells.Haha

NOW, I've had the thought of buying myself a gun. My husband isn't interested, but isn't apposed to me having one.

My one fear is children finding it. I know however, it would be locked away safely, but at the same time, I wonder how I'd get to it quickly if I needed it.

In the end, I am researching the STRICT laws here in Upstate NY and would like to join the NRA after I purchase my rifle.

I'm glad you've been discussing this topic quite often. I'm learning alot!

Rebekah

Untitled Comment

9:44 AM, Saturday, November 8, 2008 .. Posted by dsw3131

Rebekah:

Did you see my post on kids and gun safety? Buy yourself a quick access safe. That will do the trick.

Gun laws

6:51 AM, Tuesday, November 11, 2008 .. Posted by Ruth

Thanks for that post! You are right on with your facts.

Since Biden predicted Obama will be tested the beginning of his term, perhaps it will be a test where his Secret Service detail will have to use that assault weapon to protect him. I wondered if it might change his mind with regards to his stand on gun control.

Probably not... as his home state only allows POLITICIANS to carry "legally"! (now why would a politician have to be armed? (tongue in cheek :))

Untitled Comment

10:07 AM, Tuesday, November 11, 2008 .. Posted by dsw3131

I sincerely hope nothing bad happens to President Obama, but any kind of gun violence only makes Democrats and liberals want to increase gun control. It's evidence to them that there are too many guns on the streets.

The problem is that even if they made gun sales illegal for everyone, criminals would still get them. It's the law abiding citizens that would be disarmed and defenseless.

Blog

9:57 AM, Tuesday, November 18, 2008 .. Posted by ibuwolf

Greetings! I've been reading your blog all morning! Just found it by clicking on recent posts on my account page. What a GREAT blog! Over on blogger they call it "Thinking Blogger." Well done. Love what you've posted about guns, and safety, and children.... Thank-you. I've also posted a link to this post for some friends to read. :)

Keep up the great thoughts and hard work. Would love to see your homestead in action! Our's is a wanna be homestead, but we're getting there!
In Christ
Jenn Wolf

2nd Amendment

1:08 PM, Wednesday, November 19, 2008 .. Posted by Anonymous

When I got my CHL, I had several people ask me why would I want to carry. Am I that afraid something will happen and I need it. My answer is "Because I can! It is my right under the Constitution." We never question why a person believes in free speech or the press, etc. So I exercise my right to carry because I can!
I'm a proud gun-toting grandma!
Nanci