Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Crystal Ball, 1
As expected, The Daily Cal is pissed that the assault weapons ban has vanished. The one which doesn't ban high-powered killing weaponry, but does ban high-powered killing weaponry with a bayonet. Once again, The Daily Cal shows itself rather ignorant of basic civics:
While second amendment activists have called the ban an infringement on their rights as gun owners, the act was designed not to infringe on individual rights but to protect society from 19 specific assault weapons.
Of course the act wasn't designed to infringe on individual rights. That's not an excuse to accept it. Racial profiling is not designed to infringe on individual rights but to protect society from "bad guys." But people still object to it because it infringes on their rights (they say). Rare is the right-infringement legislation that is put into effect because it infringes on rights, but such legislation is still justifiably challenged.
The ban’s supporters say federal statistics indicate crimes traced to assault weapons have declined by two-thirds since the weapons ban was enacted, making this law key in preventing massive amounts of violence over the last decade.
The ban's opponents say that the assault weapons ban has done nothing. Too bad you couldn't find a useful source.
The everyman should not have access to the same caliber of semi-automatic weapons we entrust law enforcement and the military to wield.
Well, if you buy the "we need to protect ourselves from the government" argument, then yes, the everyman should have access to such weapons. In general, one can argue that the everyman should have access to the same caliber of weapons criminals wield. Here's a newsflash: Even if you make it illegal, criminals won't stop using them.
Councilmember Maio: "There’s no need for anyone to own a high-powered assault weapon."
Technically, there is no need for anyone to own a lot of things. One of the things about living in a free country is that you can have things you don't necessarily need. I don't really need six pairs of socks when I could make do with one (or none), but that doesn't mean the government should come and ban my socks.
. . .
|
. . .
|
