Israpundit Digest

Support Israpundit


USD

ILS

CAD

Syndication

Blog Traffic

Pages

Pages|Hits |Unique

  • Last 24 hours: 0
  • Last 7 days: 0
  • Last 30 days: 0
  • Online now: 0
Los Angeles SEO

Recent Comments

Sponsors

Sponsor

Dry Bones
Dry Bones

”souvenirs”

Archives

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

LIVE HEADLINE NEWS FEEDS
THERE IS NO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION

Support Israpundit

USD

ILS

CND


  • January 29, 2013

    Obama’s hypocrisy: Assault weapons OK for government employee ‘personal defense’ but not for civilians

    By Andrew L. Jaffee, netwmd.com

    While the Obama administration calls for a ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, the Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 “personal defense weapons” — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. …

    Critics, such as Republican New York state Sen. Greg Ball, are already blasting the DHS request, arguing that the government deems these firearms as suitable for self-defense but want to ban civilians from owning them.

    “Now the Department of Homeland Security even agrees that these modern sporting firearms, made illegal by Governor Cuomo, are suitable for self-defense,” Mr Ball said.

    - The Washington Times, January 27, 2013

    What a surprise. It seems that the hypocrites who govern us want to protect themselves with weapons that they would deny their own constituents. But defenders of the right to bear arms as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment aren’t being complacent. They’re fighting back against anti-gun shills like President Obama (D) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Not so fast there Diane and Barack. The Associated Press just released an article entitled “Democrats [Ds] may stand in Obama’s way on gun measures.”

    [TAKE ACTION NOW TO PROTECT GUN RIGHTS]

    In their attempt to gut the Second Amendment, Obama and Feinstein have proposed, among other extreme measures, a “ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines,” like the AR-15. But the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is “seeking more than 7,000 AR-15s and matching 30-round clips ‘suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.’” So what does DHS’s desire to purchase 7,000 AR-15s tell us? According to TheBlaze:

    … Critics of such a ban on semi-automatic rifles are already arguing that the government is showing its hypocrisy by essentially saying they are good ‘personal defense’ for them, but not for American citizens. When civilians own semi-automatic rifles, they somehow become ‘assault weapons.’” …

    The anti-gun gang is not only hypocritical, but deceptive and duplicitous. For example, the AR-15 and civilian version of the AK-47 are not “assault weapons.” Let’s turn to the U.S. government itself to dispel the myth that “assault weapons” have anything to do with “assault” or military use:

    … As the United States Defense Department’s Defense Intelligence Agency book Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide explains, “assault rifles” are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.”[21] In other words, assault rifles are battlefield rifles which can fire automatically.[22]

    Weapons capable of fully automatic fire, including assault rifles, have been regulated heavily in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934.[23] Taking possession of such weapons requires paying a $200 federal transfer tax and submitting to an FBI background check, including ten-print fingerprints.[24]

    Many civilians have purchased semiautomatic-only rifles that look like military assault rifles. These civilian rifles are, unlike actual assault rifles, incapable of automatic fire…

    It is very disturbing for President Obama to run around trying to ban “assault weapons” while his own administration put the same type of weapons into the hands of murderous Mexican drug cartel members. You haven’t forgotten his “Fast and Furious” debacle, have you? Weapons provided to Mexican criminals by the current administration have led to the murder of many Mexican citizens as well as two U.S. federal agents trying to do their jobs.

    Is there any merit to the gun-ban crowd’s proposals? When looking at various studies done after the 10-year federal assault weapons ban passed by Congress in 1994, the answer is murky, but basically “no.” From CNN:

    … A provision in the 1994 law required the attorney general to deliver a report to Congress within 30 months of the ban evaluating its effects.

    The summary of that report, conducted by the National Institute of Justice, said that “the public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not been demonstrated.”

    The authors of the study suggested further tests of enforcement techniques, including “strategic crackdowns on ‘hotspots’ for gun crime and strategic crackdowns on perpetrators of gun violence. The authors suggested these techniques might be “more immediately effective, and certainly less controversial, than regulatory approaches alone.”

    A June 2004 University of Pennsylvania study found that the ban succeeded in reducing crimes involving assault weapons. But the benefits at the time were outweighed by increased use of non-semiautomatic weapons, which the study said were used more frequently in crime. The researchers could not credit the ban with a drop in overall gun violence over the same period.

    The study did point out that since assault weapons were used no more than “8% of gun crimes, even before the ban,” its impact was likely too small to reliably measure. …”

    From the Washington Post:

    … While gun violence did fall in the 1990s, this was likely due to other factors. Here’s the UPenn study again: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.” …

    Many Americans like their civilian versions of certain military rifles, whether it be for target shooting, hunting, collecting, and/or self-protection. CBS calls the AR-15 “the most popular rifle in America.” Good citizens like large-capacity magazines for convenience (e.g., on the shooting range) and also to be prepared for catastrophic events. It wasn’t that long ago when:

    … The Los Angeles riots stunned the nation in 1992, claiming more than 50 lives in that city. As the unrest approached Koreatown, store owner Kee Whan Ha mobilized his fellow business owners to arm themselves and defend their property. …

    Whether it be threats from Mexican drug cartels infiltrating the United States, armed to the teeth; or gang-related shoot-outs; or burglars; law-abiding American citizens should have the right to protect themselves from such threats. They should also have the right to choose the weapons and accessories they deem appropriate for self-protection, within reason. AR-15s and large-capacity magazines are within reason:

    … The AR-15 has become very popular with law-abiding citizens. By 2007, even The New York Times wrote that the AR-15 and similar guns were often “the guns of choice for many hunters, target shooters and would-be home defenders” (Andrew Park, “A Hot-Selling Weapon, an Inviting Target,” June 3, 2007). In response to consumer demand, nearly a half million AR-15-type rifles were manufactured in the United States in 2009. These days, you can even buy one at Wal-Mart, which is a pretty good sign that these are popular, mass-market products.

    While the prohibition groups hysterically clamor about “assault weapons,” more and more people are buying AR-15s, just as they’ve bought other rifles descended from military arms throughout history. There is a very long tradition in which the civilian versions of service rifles have become standard firearms for hunting, target shooting and lawful self-defense. The Spencer repeating rifles and 1903 Springfield bolt-action followed this path and so did the M1 Garand after World War II. This isn’t unique to America; the military 1898 Mauser quickly became one of the most popular actions for hunting rifles in the world. Today, the AR-15 continues that venerable tradition. …

    The prohibitionists have convinced tens of millions of people that the AR-15 is some sort of ultra-powerful firearm that is meant to be spray-fired from the hip, for rapidly slaughtering people.

    In truth, the AR-15 is at the low end of power among rifles. And when you pull the trigger, it only fires one round. …

    In fact, the guns are not more “dangerous” than other standard firearms. They do not fire faster, nor do they fire more powerful ammunition. And they are certainly not “unusual.” Today, the AR-15 is the best-selling firearm in the United States. Instead, widespread experience demonstrates the AR-15 is “in common use” and is “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” There are more than 3 million of them in the hands of law-abiding American citizens. …

    People who forget history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. In all the hoo-ha surrounding the current gun debate, it seems there are many people in our ruling class who have forgotten — or want citizens to forget — the reason our Founders enacted the Second Amendment:

    … “We need these rifles because the government has them,” Alwood [a firearms trainer and consultant] explained. …

    “[Without the Second Amendment] there is no way to resist the government, voiding all other amendments,” Alwood said. “Why should [the government] continue to give you your freedom of speech if there is no one to stop them[?] It’s the only safeguard we have to protect us from a tyrannical government. … Look at all countries in trouble with dictators, they have absolute gun bans.”

    Would Obama or Feinstein call Alexander Hamilton, one of our Founding Fathers, a “lunatic” or “fanatic?” He helped build the great society into which these two politicos rose to public office. On December 26, 1787, Hamilton wrote:

    If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defence, which is paramount to all positive forms of government; and which, against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success, than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power became usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions or districts, of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defence. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, cloathed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition; and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements; and the military force in the possession of the usurpers, can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation, there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to ensure success to the popular resistance.

    When you think of the preservation of democracy in the United States; the welfare of yourself, family, friends, and community; your right to the pursuit of liberty and happiness; and, your right to protect yourself, family, friends, community, and nation; who would you trust? Would you trust in the beliefs of soon-to-be-forgotten politicos like President Obama or Senator Feinstein, or would you trust our Founding Fathers, the men who created the greatest and freest nation in world history?

    TAKE ACTION NOW TO PROTECT GUN RIGHTS

    Write a polite and factual letter to the president and each of your elected representatives in Washington. Keep it short and sweet and to the point (e.g., “I urge you to oppose Sen. Feinstein’s gun control legislation” and/or “why can the DHS use ‘assault weapons’ for ‘personal protection’ but I can’t?”). State the facts. Follow up by calling each of your elected reps, making a short statement emphasizing what you composed in your letter. Using any/all of the following links, you’ll find the resources you need to:

    You can also enter your zip code below and find contact information for all your elected representatives or click on these links:

    _________
    Cross-posted at netwmd.com and IsraPundit

  • Posted by Andrew Jaffee @ 9:20 am | Comments Off

    Comments are closed.

    Site Membership



    Google Site Search

    Editor

      Ted Belman

      tbelman3-at-gmail.com

    Mission

      News and Views on Israel, the Middle East, the war on terror and the clash of civilizations.

    Polls

    Will Israel attack Iran

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    RECOMMENDED BOOKS

    LOVE




    Tolerism2

    Iran islam

    Sharing

    mandate4

    Daily Archives

    July 2014
    S M T W T F S
    « Jun    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  

    Selected Israpundit Articles

    Miscellaneous Info

      All Politic Sites