Image Image

  Nostalgia ain't what it used to be

Sunday, 29 November, 2020

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Date: 13 September, 2004

By: Chief

Imageied today. As it was not reenacted its 'sunset' clause became operative and, as they say, the rest is history. Will it be resurrected? Who knows? I'm quite sure that some form of it will surface in the halls of Congress. Will the new version make it through and be signed into law? I suspect that depends upon the outcome of this upcoming general election which is, by the way, just a couple of months down the road. We will find out soon enough I suspect.

As it stands anyway you have 'pro-gun' people quietly celebrating the fall of this law. On the other side of the coin you have the 'anti-gun' people bitching up a storm. After reading the article in today's San Francisco Gate (09/13/04) online newspaper it appears that the Republican stomping and overthrow of the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate in 1994 was directly attributed to the passage of the assault weapons ban bill of the same year. Well, and I am no, as in zero, fan of either the Republican or Democratic political parties but as the saying goes — you get what you pay for. The Democrats, who had controlled Congress for approximately 40 years got the boot. Don't play with guns folks, you just might get canned. And they did.

The sole issue with any gun control law is a very simple one: emotion. Guns kill. At least that is what people by and large think. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Guns are a tool. Tools are meant to be used ... properly and after appropriate training.

Any object can be utilized as a deadly weapon, a lethal weapon. Al Capone killed one of his lieutenants at a dinner party with a baseball bat. Rocks are deadly, so are icepicks, kitchen knives, airbags, helmets, pool cues and vehicles. All can and have been used with deadly efficiency.Any object can be utilized as a deadly weapon, a lethal weapon. Al Capone killed one of his lieutenants at a dinner party with a baseball bat. Rocks are deadly, so are icepicks, kitchen knives, airbags, helmets, pool cues and vehicles. All can and have been used with deadly efficiency.

I have written about this before and do so again now. Consider the automobile. When an innocent person is killed by a drunken driver, the drunken driver is castigated at length — as he or she should be. But not the automobile. Only the driver of the vehicle. But if an innocent person is killed by a gun it is the gun, not the wielder of the gun, that is castigated at length. I find the comparison to be utterly fascinating and a complete travesty upon the truth.

Both the automobile and the gun are inanimate objects. Left to their own devices the gun and the car can do nothing on their own. Both require human intervention, be that intervention for good or for evil. An inanimate object is just that — inanimate.

Who do you blame for an act of violence? An inanimate object or the hand that wields the object?

Yes, in this country we do have the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. However, the federal government, the various state governments and their political subordinates have enacted a plethora of laws which make owning a gun difficult and using a gun even more so. So much for the Second Amendment.

In essence the People of the United States are an unarmed citizenry. Most people who live in populated areas do not own a gun. And most people have no idea how to use a gun properly. How often do you actually see people on a rifle, pistol or shotgun range practicing with their guns? Not just for sport, but, if you will, for life support? Not very many I dare say.

Most people have come to rely on their local police or sheriffs department. The good old "if this is an emergency hang up and dial 911."

Hogwash says I. Personally, I would rather have a gun in my hand than a cop on the phone.

In other words, and this is a shame, most citizens of this country are defenseless. Think about it for a moment. Do the majority of crimes occur against an armed citizen? A strong citizen, if you will? Or do the majority of crimes occur against an unarmed, defenseless citizen? I would be willing to bet that most crimes fall into the latter category.

How many home invasion robberies would occur if the robber thought he might get shot dead in his tracks by the occupants of the house? How many rapes would occur if the would-be rapist thought he might get his dick shot off by his intended victim? How many drive-by shootings would occur if the perpetrators thought the home owners just might shoot back and kill them?

I'll tell you what I think. I think that our nation wide crime rate would drop, and drop considerably. Criminals are like bullies. They attack those people they perceive to be weak. And guess what? Calling 911 is not going to do a person a damn bit of good until after the attack is over. By then, it is far too late.

Remember September 11th, 2001? Truly a horrid day for the world. A band of criminals hijacked four airliners. The passengers were, of course, unarmed (when was the last time you could board an airplane with a loaded gun or some other weapon?). The criminals were armed, sort of a wolves against a flock of sheep scenario. Out of the four aircraft three reached their targets, killing over 3,000 innocent people. Only one aircraft failed to reach a target and that was because the passengers fought back. The plane crashed killing all aboard. But at least no other damage was caused. I, for one, salute those who fought back and made the ultimate sacrifice.

Like it or not, those facts are recorded as matters of public record. Now, here is the question: what could the outcome have been on that tragic day had the public been allowed to bear arms on those aircraft? Factually speaking, we have no idea. It is quite possible, however, that September 11th, 2001 might not have ever happened. Why is that? Again the bullies most likely would have picked a weaker target. In other words, some other country. Why try and hijack an airplane if most of the passengers are armed and could turn a would-be hijacker into a sieve? The bad guys know this. They are not nearly as stupid as we like to think they are. Has Osama bin Laden been apprehended or killed? No. I rest my case.

We, as private citizens, can do and continue to do a far better job of protecting our families, ourselves and our property than the government ever has. Yet the government attempts to hamstring us. Does that make a lick's worth of sense to you? It sure as hell does not to me. Giving criminals the 'keys to the city' by taking away the primary means of defense for the citizen does not reduce crime in the least.

The bottom line on this whole matter is, simply put, the government has not and cannot keep us safe and secure. Only the individual citizen can do that. Furthermore, if the government takes away what is used by citizens to protect life and property then the bad guys, the criminals, the bullies have won. Without lifting a finger. They can rape, ravage and pillage the village at their leisure.

Government, give us back our full rights to keep and bear arms and crime will drop. So will the criminals.

What is gun control? One shot ... one kill. That's what.

[Ed note: This story has been updated.]

(Return to the top)