Tuesday, February 19, 2013

On the Bright Side, You Still Have Quills!

This has been irking the hell out of me.

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.

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.
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.

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.


Soap Box One said...

Because someone using a Ruger Mini-14 to shoot up a playground would never think of sawing off the wooden stock or cutting down the barrel to make it easier to conceal.

Oh, wait…that would be illegal. Such an upstanding, law-abiding member of society wouldn’t want to run afoul of that particular law while committing mass murder.

Soap Box One said...

So, if a Republican in Congress proposed a bill to ban third trimester abortions, the MSM headline would read "Abortion ban protects most abortions", and the "progressive" left would be OK with that, because they'd see that bill as the abortion rights-protecting measure that it is, right?

What? Why are you laughing?

Jay G said...

That's beautiful right there.

Although I'll quibble - the ban should be for second and third trimester abortions, and make it a felony to have - or provide - second and third trimester abortions.

Since the majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester, the ban would "protect" most abortions.

This would be peachy keen fine to the progressives, right?

Wally said...

I actually think this 2200-gun exemption is a reasonable restriction.

Sure, I like guns as much as the next guy - and if I can have 2200 guns then that should meet my needs. As much contemplation as to what gun is best for X, well, if I had 2200, I'd surely have everything covered.

If you only had 2200 guns, which would you select ?

Ed said...

How many children shot at Sandy Hook vs. how many aborted fetuses on the same day?

See http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/21/death-statistic/

"In the days when Stalin was Commissar of Munitions, a meeting was held of the highest ranking Commissars, and the principal matter for discussion was the famine then prevalent in the Ukraine. One official arose and made a speech about this tragedy — the tragedy of having millions of people dying of hunger. He began to enumerate death figures … Stalin interrupted him to say: “If only one man dies of hunger, that is a tragedy. If millions die, that’s only statistics.”"

Bubblehead Les. said...

So they "Protect" over 2,200 Guns and Ban 157.

So that means there can be no NEW Guns, correct? I mean, think about it. If only THESE Guns are SAFE, and THESE must be BANNED, then anything NEW that doesn't fit either LIst is ...what? Legal or Illegal?

Think about it. LIst all the New guns that have come out since the Original '94 Ban. Here, I'll start: Ruger LCP, Ruger LC9, Ruger SR9 and 40; Smith and Wesson M+Ps, Remington R series,....

But we've seen this Logic before, you know. "First they came for the Jews..."

PJS said...

"But we've seen this Logic before, you know. 'First they came for the Jews...'" -- Yep, I was just going to weigh in with the same thing.

Anonymous said...

Jay when I First read this and then thought about it for a while one thing stood out, this article was basically saying that these were the guns our esteemed leaders would approve for our use, then another thought was how soon afterwards and in order to ensure our safety would the list have to be amended (cut) to shorten this list.
The concept seems to be once you grant them the right to choose individual guns as safe they will be free to revisit the list later and suddenly find other unsafe firearms that need to be removed from the safe list


Daniel in Brookline said...

I wanted to say something snarky about this -- for example, that maybe it made sense to "protect" the Ruger Mini-14, since the A-Team proved you could never actually hit anything with it anyway.

But I'm not feeling snarky. I'm appalled. A list of firearms we're permitted to own? The obvious next step is to start narrowing down the list, claiming "oh, we thought that one was all right, but now someone has misused it, so it must be banned too."

By similar logic, every time a drunk driver kills someone, we should find out what model of car he drove and make it illegal.

If you haven't seen it yet, check out this from the Cornered Cat:


Daniel in Brookline said...

My wife has, as usual, an unusual take on this.

She says that if only certain guns will be permitted, no problem. Lots of very different guns will start to be called by the same name, that's all. I may have five pistols, two rifles, a shotgun, and a Derringer, but they're all Ruger 22s. (What, is it now illegal to give something a name?)

"...and the most she will do is throw shadows at you, but she's always a Ruger to me. Hmm hmm hmmm..."