Hillary Clinton Promises to Renew Assault Weapon Ban
From Alphecca:
Campaigning in Pennsylvania yesterday, Hillary Clinton promised to “halve homicide rates in major cities” with a crime fighting plan:
* To renew the ban on assault weapons and repeal the Tiahrt amendment, which restricts federal authorities from sharing gun-trace information with local law enforcement.
In addition, I'll add some clarifications for those folks reading that might not know or understand why this is such a sticking point with pro-2nd Amendment civil rights groups.
Imagine the 1st Amendment. It doesn't cease to be valid just because the citizenry has moved beyond the basic printing press and into the internet age. By similar token, the 2nd Amendment should apply to modern arms.
In addition, there is a big problem with the verbiage that many anti-civil rights gun control proponents use... The following quotes form Ellegon.com pretty much hits the mark:
In a military context, an assault rifle is "a specific military term for various types of fully-automatic and select-fire (multi-shot burst) intermediate-power long guns."An "assault weapon", on the other hand, is accurately defined by the folks at Wiki as this:
Assault weapon Assault weapon or "assault-style weapon" is a nebulous term used by public officials, media, and gun-control proponents as a dysphemism to refer to any firearms they consider inappropriate for civilian ownership or look particulary menacing. Although there is no concrete meaning for this term, legally (especially as it pertains to the assault weapons ban), "assault weapon" means whatever Congress says it means.The skeptic in me suspects that the term "assault weapon" was created specifically to fit in the sentence, "Why would anybody need an assault weapon?" It was intended as a wedge issue, to push hunters away from the rest of the firearms community, and with the "Assault Weapons Ban" ready to sunset next year, it's time to put the wedge issue away.
But let's get away from the silliness of "Why would anybody need [x]?" That's not an honest inquiry; it's just a rhetorical trick that can be used to try to argue away pretty much anything. Why does somebody need a semiauto at all, when revolvers are available? Why does somebody need a Chevy, when there are Hondas and Toyotas? Why does somebody need the Star Tribune when the Pioneer Press is being published?Restricting rights based on others' perceptions of "need" is just plain wrong.
Posted 03:38AM Apr 16, 2008 by MCSA
