Gun ban would protect more than 2,200 firearms
WASHINGTON — Congress' latest crack at a new assault weapons ban would protect more than 2,200 specific firearms, including a semi-automatic rifle that is nearly identical to one of the guns used in the bloodiest shootout in FBI history.You see, they've learned from their mistakes in the 1994 AWB. Rather than ban firearms by name (which they did again, BTW) - which only lead to manufacturers changing the name so they could perfectly legally sell those rifles, they're "protecting" certain firearms by exempting them. You see, when they banned firearms by name, the manufacturers just assigned a different name and continued selling the rifle. It was called a "loophole", when it fact it was just a very poorly written law. This time they're banning everything except certain guns, and claiming that this somehow "protects" these guns.
One model of that firearm, the Ruger .223 caliber Mini-14, is on the proposed list to be banned, while a different model of the same gun is on a list of exempted firearms in legislation the Senate is considering. The gun that would be protected from the ban has fixed physical features and can't be folded to be more compact. Yet the two firearms are equally deadly.
No. The Gorram Constitution protects my guns. Not some cleverly worded "list" you append to your end-run around the Second Amendment in an effort to appease the Fudds, but the Second Amendment itself. This is a lot like submitting a bill that claims all newspaper articles, blog postings, and television programming will have to be approved by the government before it goes out - but that anything written in longhand can be posted on your own property at any time. And then claiming that "Free speech" is "protected".
There's a section in the article about debate over the M1 carbine. THE M1 FREAKING CARBINE. It's a "weapon of war" (which it is, actually, and almost exclusively so) even though it fires what is only marginally a pistol caliber. A .44 Magnum or 10mm out of a handgun is more powerful than the .30 Carbine, yet the M1 Carbine is so dangerous that the entire rifle had to be banned. They have now provided "exceptions" for three models, and quite frankly I'd be amused to find out how they came up with those models.
But to have the audacity and unmitigated gall to title an article with the preposterous idea that a gun ban is "protecting" certain firearms? That's just breathtaking, it really is. This has passed beyond the realm of mere bias and has crossed over the creepy line into propaganda. Weakness is strength and all that. Bans protect the very thing they're banning! No one wants to take your guns away - except all of these cases where we do actually want to take your guns away.
I own an M1 carbine. It's one of the earlier models (has the button safety rather than the switch) that was most likely issued sometime in the 1940s. This rifle is approximately seventy years old, and has been in my family, literally, for generations. Under Feinstein's idiotic rules, I would have to register it with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives just like a machine gun. It is less powerful, mind you, than the Kel-Tec SUB2000 that I am currently reviewing. And yet it will be treated like an M-16.
This is what they consider "common sense gun control", where a seventy year old rifle passed down to me by my grandfather is considered as dangerous as an M-60...
That is all.