The Folly of an "Assault Weapons" Ban - Part 2

Monday, September 15, 2008

Part 1 explained that the "assault weapons" ban that expired in 2004 applied only to certain semiautomatic firearms, commonly used for self-defense and sporting purposes. The clarification was necessary, because the ban supporters either did not understand the differences between semiautomatic firearms equipped with certain features and fully automatic weapons or, more likely, the ban supporters cynically manipulated people's unfounded fears of "scary looking" guns for political purposes.

The weapons previously affected by the expired ban are no more powerful than semiautomatic pistols and rifles used for self-defense, hunting, and competition every day. In fact, some supposed "assault weapons" are less powerful than many hunting rifles. A bayonet mount, folding stock, or flash suppressor does not provide any criminal with an advantage.

Moreover, these types of weapons are used in very few crimes, much fewer than crimes committed with other weapons, knives, and fists. Gun control advocates have been unable to demonstrate preferences by criminals for any particular firearms, whether "assault weapons" or "Saturday night specials" are the villains du jour. The only real distinguishing feature between firearms used for self-defense, sporting or competitive purposes and those used in crime is that criminals do not usually feel the need to comply with gun control laws, while the majority of Americans do.

Attempts to restrict gun ownership based on arbitrary criteria and irrationality are part of a scheme to gradually erode your rights until law abiding citizens are powerless against threats of all types. Now that Americans have a clear, individual, Constitutional right to keep and bear arms under Heller, we must protect those rights from attacks brought by those only interested in increasing their political power.