Associated Press Clouds the Gun Debate with Its Ignorance
By Glen Wunderlich
There are so many opinions about “doing something” about guns, I’ve purposely avoided comment to date. But, after reading an AP piece, it’s easy to see why people become confused.
It begins by stating that the previous “assault weapons” ban was considered imperfect by many. Then it starts the misinformation indicating that if the ban had been in place during the Sandy Hook killings, it would have been illegal for the gunman to use the 30-round magazines…
First of all, what he was doing was illegal – 30-round magazine or no 30-round magazine. He stole the guns, broke into the school, and possessed other guns that he used to murder. But, here’s the misinformation: 30-round magazines were never illegal to possess, trade, or sell. They were not confiscated. They existed then and they exist now – all of the time before and after the 1994 Clinton gun ban. All legal.
What should have been stated was that they couldn’t be legally produced in the U.S. nor could they be imported. That’s it. And, that’s why the ban was of no meaningful consequence. And, that’s not all.
The ignorant White House correspondent claims that the 1994 ban outlawed certain firearms such as the Colt AR-15, UZI, and TEC-9…
Again, these guns were never outlawed. They existed legally before the ban and have ever since – all legally. They couldn’t be manufactured in this country and they coudn’t be imported. No more. No less.
Then she (the AP scholar) mentions that “clips” that held more than 10 “bullets” were outlawed, too. Apparently she doesn’t know the difference between bullets and other components of a cartridge. These types of statements display how little they know about their subject matter.
The law did nothing to eliminate guns in existence. So, what good was it? And, the problematic hypothetical question for the goody-goody gun grabbers: How are you going to get all the firearms from the bad guys with any gun ban? Nobody can and that’s why it can’t work.
Plus, other than cosmetic differences and feel-good mental gymnastics, anyone that knows anything about fireams, knows that the perverted term of assault rifle operates the same as any semi-automatic firearm widely used by sportsmen for over a hundred years. Nonetheless, bad guns were defined as bad because of their appearance.
When the ban sunsetted after 10 years, it couldn’t be resurrected, because the votes were not there in Congress. If it changes this time around, we’ll have the same feel-good, do-nothing legislation and the same results: Nothing!
I sincerely believe there are steps that can be taken to minimize all risks of misuse of firearms, but until the urge to kill innocents is halted, killings will continue – be they with box cutters and airplanes, bombs, or firearms.
In closing, any firearms that may become banned also typically serve well as defensive tools for the citizen not living in gated communities. Ranchers, farmers, outdoors people, and target shooters all rely on firearms for self-protection and that of loved ones. If they are good on offense, they are just as good on defense. Some of them are semi-automatic, too.
Since the Second Amendment was designed to protect the individual from government’s infringing upon his/her right to self-defense of anyone, including tyrannical government – remember, …shall not be infringed” – is clear, and so far, our Supreme Court has agreed.
But, watch for “reasonable” infringements, being sold to us as “for the greater good.” Also, watch for more compliant spin, as the ignorant media performs the bidding for the anti-Constitutional, gun-grabbing crowd.