2/26/2009

Obama to push for new "assault weapons ban"

ABC has the story here:

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
The Ban Expired in 2004 During the Bush Administration.
By JASON RYAN
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25, 2009—
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.
Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.
"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.. . .

Labels: ,

7 Comments:

OpenID Adam Smith said...

Well, the NRA warned us that Holder is a rabid anti-gun rights guy who could not care less about the constitution. Lucky are those who over the last year loaded up on ARs and M1As. Backlogs will grow even more. Unlucky are future Americans who would be stripped even more of their 2nd amendment rights. Pretty soon you won't even be able to own a blow-gun. What's the Bill of Rights for, anyway--anyone cares?!

2/26/2009 9:02 AM  
OpenID LibertyNews said...

Something is fishy with his reasoning. The last time I checked grenades and automatic weapons were not easily available in the US.

To me it looks like they are trying to find an any reason to drum up support for a new ban. Time to dust off the stats from the last one and remind them that it had no effect on crime.

2/26/2009 10:02 AM  
Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

Just a few changes? Like banning centerfire and rimfire firearms?

After all, that is only two changes...

2/26/2009 10:54 AM  
Blogger Harry Schell said...

Automatic weapons and grenades do not come from gunshows or gun dealers in the US...such weapons are not sold there, cannot be. The criminals get them from other channels with access to military supplies.

Again we are lied to by ideologues who want the people to exist as subjects, not citizens. Some say government should have a monopoly on the use of force, but that is farcical, because what happens is the monopoly is shared with criminals, with unarmed citizens in the middle.

The Mumbai terrorists, the wingnut at Virginia Tech and similar mass shootings are so successful because the targets have been disarmed, cannot return fire. Mass murderers pick the weak and unarmed to attack, and gun-free zones are where such targets can be found.

The prior AWB did nothing to reduce/prevent/mitigate crime. This move is part of the socialist mantra that the state should control everything. It is harder for the state to control an armed citizenry. Ergo, one of the first things done is to disarm citizens so that they may be less of a problem for the state to manage. The history is unequivocal.

Decades of FBI crime statistics show conclusively that these supposedly evil guns are rarely used in crimes. There is no factual basis for what Holder and his fellow travelers claim, that such weapons pose a significant threat or that removing them from the hands of citizens will reduce crime.

No facts, simple ideology. This is wrong.

Mexico has very strict gun controls, and look what it does for them. The UK has had strict controls for decades and has the highest per capita violent crime rate in the developed world. The utter failure of written law to control criminal acts should be a lesson as to what we can expect from gun controls...criminals will ignore them entirely.

Los Angeles has very strict concealed carry laws, so that the only people carrying are cops and criminals. Last year a black teenager was murdered in broad daylight by a felon (who by law cannot possess a firearm) carrying concealed (2nd law broken) who acquired a handgun less than 36 hours after being released from prison (parole violation, 3rd broken law). He saw the kid and killed him (4th law broken).

All this written law he violated, and what did it matter?

And Holder tells me taking my guns away will make me safer? I doubt it very much.

Obama and Holder clearly are afraid of armed citizens. Why is that? What do they plan that makes them afraid?

I am getting to be even more afraid of them than I was.

2/26/2009 12:19 PM  
Blogger JFA in Montreal said...

In the Quebec province of Canada, the birthplace of the Canadian gun control law, where simple possession is criminalized and all guns and owners ought to be separately registered, the purpose of gun laws is not to protect the citizenry against crime but to protect the state itself.

If you go look at the organigram of Quebec Provincial Police (Sureté du Quebec), http://www.suretequebec.gouv.qc.ca/mission-et-services/organisation/organigramme.pdf you will notice in the extreme low-right corner the "Service du Controle des Armes à Feu" (Firearms control service). It is entirely, and solely, under the "Direction de la Protection de l'État" (Directorate for the Protection of the State), and has nothing to do with the protection of the territory or with Criminal Affairs ("Enquêtes Criminelles") which pertains to the protection of citizens and property.

Gun control, although made swallowable to the population though the pretext of personal safety, has nothing to do with the later and everything to do with the perceived protection of the politicians against their own population. Observe that govt who do not abuse their population are usually not keen on imposing gun control, while the reverse is, for all practical purposes, almost always true.

A local minister confessed (name witheld), after having been asked by his chauffeur (name witheld) that what triggered the crafting of the Canadian law was not the highly publicized school massacre at École Polytechnique but when Corp. Lortie, a disgruntled, mentally ill ex-military guy erupted in the Quebec parliement and attempted to kill elected official. Luckily for the elected official, almost no-one was present in chamber on that day, only two person got killed. Same minister said that the school killing of a dozen of engineering students, all young women, at École Polytechnique de Montréal was the perfect excuse to convince the population of the need for gun control.

2/26/2009 3:48 PM  
Blogger John A said...

Holder got taken to the woodshed by ... Pelosi?
*Pelosi assaults weapons banning* “On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference.

Note a bit of autorial snark - ...that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.

2/26/2009 4:43 PM  
Blogger The Right Guy said...

I'll be down to a Walker Dragoon and a Swiss Army Knife if Holder has his way. ARs and M1As? I wish.

2/26/2009 10:38 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home