"We don't say that we should have cheaper cars for poor people...." - Barbara
Boxer - January 9, 1997
There are many faults with all of the proposed bans of "saturday night specials"
or "junk guns", the very first being that it is impossible to define exactly
what constitutes such a weapon. Let's examine this aspect first.
DEFINING BY SIZE: Some proponents of these bans wish to establish some minimum
overall or barrel length requirement for handguns. What criteria is used to
determine what that minimum is? Anything to do with the gun's effectiveness?
A two inch barreled .38 Special is far more effective than a ten inch barreled
.22 LR. Anything to do with accuracy? Even the shortest barreled handguns
are pleny accurate enough for use at defensive distances, and small handgun in
a small caliber can often be fired more accurately (because of recoil etc) than
a large handgun in a large caliber (see Spider's Favorite Firearms page, the
paragraph on the Wesson .445 Supermag). Or does it have anything to do with
concealability? Any handgun can be easily concealed under a medium weight
coat, sweater, or really any loose fitting clothing. And as long as there's
any firearms, there will always be a "most concealable" firearm. Another
intriguing aspect to this is - under the laws in over 30 states where people
can be licensed to carry concealed firearms, it is stipulated in the law that
the firearm must be concealed. Banning small concealable firearms makes it
rather difficult to comply with those laws.
DEFINING BY CALIBER: Several problems here. First off, any self defense class
will teach you that the best handgun is the one you can control. A .357
Magnum is great - if you can handle the recoil. If you can't, you use
something smaller, period. It doesn't matter how bad the bullet is if you
can't hit your target. Another problem is, what constitutes a "bad" caliber?
No one can claim that a .22 LR, a .25 ACP, or a .32 ACP is a poor caliber
because these are all quite deadly, and very effective at close defensive
ranges. Perhaps the main reason to oppose this type of restriction is that
while some gun rights opponents want to ban the small calibers, others want
to ban the large calibers. What will be left?
DEFINING BY "SPORTING USE": Guns are not just for sport, and even if they were,
there are many different kinds of sport. No one would recommend a .45 ACP Colt
Government for deer hunting, but for pin shooting (if you don't know what that
is you have no right to even guess at "sporting uses" of firearms) they're
great. The semi-automatic variants of the military M-16 (or AR-15) might
seem to the uneducated to be merely army assault weapons, but they are
notoriously accurate and reliable for competition shooting, and their very
light recoil makes them a superb choice. But as I said, guns are not just for
sport - self defense is a perfectly valid reason to own a firearm. And just
about any firearm will suit that purpose.
DEFINING BY COST: What right does the government have to restrict the rights of
the American people based upon their financial status? This would be decidedly
un-American and unconstitutional. Especially considering that those of the
lowest economic standing are living in the worst neighborhoods, and are the
most in need of a firearm for protection. Add to that the fact that like
anything and everything else in the world, firearms depreciate with age, wear,
and damage. Cost restrictions would be impossible to implement anywhere
except the retail outlet, making it all the more alluring to buy your guns
secondhand. In addition, the Boxer proposed ban contends that the less
expensive variety of handguns are "unsafe" - yet her bill allows police to
possess and carry them. Why would anyone want to allow policemen to carry
"unsafe" firearms? The truth is that these are not unsafe firearms, and Boxer
obviously knows this. The ban has nothing at all to do with the quality,
reliability, or safety of the firearms.
So, what are the criteria to be based upon? The answer is, of course, upon
the opinions of diehard gun banners like Charlie Schumer, Barbie Boxer, and
the like, with a strong eye on ways to increase the restrictions over time.
People who don't shoot and really don't know anything about firearms, and want
nothing more than to eventually ban all firearms, will be using their total
ignorance to decide what constitutes a "good" firearm.
To continue, carrying a concealed weapon without being licensed to do so is
already a felony crime in 49 of the 50 states. What purpose would this type
of gun ban serve, who would it really effect, when the people who currently
break the existing laws are not punished to an adequate degree? A person
using a firearm to commit a crime is usually breaking breaking several federal
laws and a multitude of state laws that they never even get charged with. The
seeming soloution proposed by Schumer, Boxer, et al is to impose further
restrictions on the law abiding population who are not causing any problems.
Gun bans are unconstitutional on two counts. First off, they violate the
Second Amendment to the Constitution, which clearly does guarantee the right
OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. Secondly, the federal goverenment has
no constitutional power or authority to implement gun bans regardless of
whether there was a Second Amendment or not. Even if there was no protection
provided by the Constitution for the right to bear arms, the federal
government would be in violation of the Tenth Amendment by banning firearms
of any particular type.
At the end of it all, the "saturday night special" or "junk gun" bans are
merely additional attempts at the piecemeal destruction of American rights.
The only true purpose these bans serve, as is the case with the "assault
weapon" bans, is to tighten the noose a little tighter. Incremental gun
control - aka "Divide and Conquer", is what it's all about. Make a big fuss
about a particular type of gun, regardless of the facts, and use that to take
another step towards total disarmament. The "assault weapon" ban had nothing
to do with crime. If your representative backed the "assault weapon" ban
because they thought it would effect crime, your representative is grossly
incompetant. Assault weapons were used in less than ONE PERCENT of gun
related crimes. If your representative decided to fight crime by taking aim
at less than one percent of the problem, you are sorely in need of new and
better representation. However, that probably was not the case, even if your
representative said it was. People voted for the "assault weapon" ban because
it was a way to limit people's freedom in regards to firearms. Those same
people will likely support a ban on "saturday night specials" or "junk guns"
for the same reason. It is divide and conquer, and if gun owners allow
themselves to be divided again, like they were on the "assault weapons" issue,
they will soon find themselves conquered.
Someone should tell Barbie Boxer that they DO make cheaper cars for poor
people - it seems she's never heard of Geo, Hyundai, Volkswagon - or buying
a used car.
Get your own Free Home Page