Time and time again Cable News Outlets such as Fox and commentators such as Lou Dobbs have deliberately hyped unfounded and unrealistic fears of a Totalitarian Take-Over of the U.S. by Obaman Forces.
AG Eric Holder discussing the 2nd Amendment and Heller decision.
There has been some discussion by the Obama Administration on restoring the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban, but this appears to have fallen onto the back burner, particularly in the wake of a letter from 65 Democrats in the House opposing reinstatement of the ban.
Today in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, 65 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, led by Congressman Mike Ross (D-AR), expressed their opposition to the reinstatement of the 1994 ban on semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines. These congressmen cited studies that proved the 1994 ban was ineffective, and they strongly urged Attorney General Holder to stop his effort and instead focus on the enforcement of existing gun laws
Holder has talked about restricting "Cop-Killer" bullets which can punch through body-army and other weapons which might endanger police. I'm neither hear nor there on this issue as I think any gun owner should held responsible for their actions with that weapon under any case. People may, under Heller, have the right to own a weapon - but exactly which kinds of weapons and what you can or can't do with it is another matter. I don't think the second amendment protects a right to own a rocket-launcher, a tank or a home-made bomb. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. At any case the Obama Administration is NOT making this a high priority issue, they are NOT preparing to have a HUGE ROUND UP of weapons, they aren't lobbying Congress to change the law, Congress is lobbying them NOT TO.
People need to calm the hell down. Seriously. This hysteria is costing lives. Stop it and use your heads.
Vyan
6 comments:
Agreed. This country needs to relax on this and so many other topics. These fear merchants that are driving everybody crazy. What is unfortunate is the fact that we live in America and my freedoms today are the same as they have been my entire life. If there was truly something to be scared about, I wouldn't be typing this now.
Anyway, good work. We need a drink.
A fundamental -- and valid -- concern regarding President Obama and his administration is a demonstrable lack of understanding of firearms, as is evident in Mr. Holder's call for a ban on "cop-killer" bullets, an entirely fictional construct which shows only that Mr. Holder is unaware that any handgun ammunition capable of penetrating soft body armour such as that which is issued to police officers (requiring that the bullet have a steel or brass core, instead of a lead core) is already prohibited to civilians. Individuals who demonstrably have studied neither firearms technology noor existing firearms law should not propose additional, and unnecessary and unreasonable, restrictions on firearms ownership.
Ok, so I took a look at the "Cop-Killer" bullet issue and you are half correct. So-called Armor piercing bullets were banned by a piece of NRA sponsored legislation in 1986, however in 1995...
Nine years ago, Congress prohibited the sale, manufacture, importing or possession of bullets capable of piercing bulletproof vests typically worn by police officers. But since then, some such bullets have been able to skirt the ban because they are made of plastic rather than metal.
So the committee on Wednesday approved a measure, sponsored by Representative Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of Brooklyn, that would have banned any bullets, regardless of what they were made of, that could pierce protective vests.
The Schumer amendment passed on a vote of 16 to 14, with three Republicans supporting it and five members absent. But today two of those Republicans changed their votes, and, with the entire committee present, the Schumer amendment was reversed in a series of votes that would replace the ban with a study. The votes generally went along party lines.
I'm not crazy about the original assault weapons ban both because it doesn't do what it attempts, which is limit the availability of truly dangerous weapons from reaching the hands of criminals - and it doesn't take a consistent and logical approach toward holding those who would use gun irresponsibly to task because it contained non-sensical loopholes. It was a political document, not a law enforcement document. It may appear that the NRA-sponsored "cop-killer bullet" ban is much the same - since it fails to address plastic bullets or other advances in technology.
In Heller the Supreme Court affirmed the 2nd Amendment as a personal right, but not an absolute right. The Court found...
"[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Court's opinion, although refraining from an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right, "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
This makes it pretty clear that Holder was correct about Heller, bans which do not preclude the right of reasonable self-defense - even against the government - can be enacted.
Vyan
Vyan:
You obviously aren't aware that almost any rifle cartridge more pwerful than a .22 Long Rifle is capable of penetrating soft body armor, regardless of its bullet materials and construction.. Therefore, what Schumer was pushing was an effective ban on almost every rifle cartridge used for hunting and long-range target shooting. Let's hope his idea will remain in "study" mode forever.
Body Armor come in various levels of effectiveness and thickness, some are hardly effective at all - in general I think it's a moot point. ALL WEAPONS and ALL BULLETS are not going to be banned, and Heller essentially guarantees this for the forseeable future. All anyone can do is political posturing around the margins, calm down and stop worrying about it.
Vyan
Let me just add one additional thought, the ability of a .22 rifle slug to penetrate "soft" body armor has nothing to do with the slug - it has to the with the power of the Rifle. Lots of different Rifles including M-16, AR-15 and AK's can penetrate body armor - not to mention hunting Rifle's like Weatherby's - so a "cop-killer bullet" ban would *never* affect these types of guns since it's not about how the bullet is manufactured, it's about the gun itself - and no one - NO ONE - has suggesting we stop using hunting rifles. This is all about hand-guns.
This also reminds me of the silly ass argument that's been raging for decades between the "stopping power" of a 9-mil vs a .45. Hey man, if I want "STOPPING POWER" - I'm using a SHOTGUN, fuck that pistol shit.
Vyan
Post a Comment