Tag Archives: assault weapons ban

This little bit of dirt is as deliciously hypocritical as it is despicably interesting (I’ve written before on Senator Feinstein’s misguided attempts to relieve the public of certain possessions – when Marine Joshua Boston wrote an open letter to the senator, which gained some attention – found here).

In 1995, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) went on the record about the fact that she had a concealed carry permit and carried a concealed handgun when she walked back and forth to the hospital to see her ailing husband.

She was also dealing with threats from a terror group, the World Liberation Front. The group had tried to bomb her house on one occasion and had shot out her windows on another.

Reflecting on those moments, Feinstein said

I know the sense of helplessness that people feel, I know the urge to arm yourself, because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick, I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if someone was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.

Shame on Sen. Feinstein: even though she admits to knowing how it feels to know your life is in your own hands, even though she testified to the security she derived from having a gun on her person in those dark moments, Dianne Feinstein is now hell bent on banning every gun she can and to deny common citizens the same security she herself enjoyed.

This is elitism-gone-wild. And the message it communicates is that the lives of average Americans aren’t worthy of the security a gun affords.

Everyone following the gun-control debate should be aware of this. If you look in the dictionary next to hypocrisy, you will find a picture of Diane Feinstein. I hesitate to accuse anyone of elitism – since the term seems to be bandied about quite often these days, and is an easy barb to shoot at any of the liberal persuasion which detracts from its usefulness, plus I believe there are instances where some amount of elitism is a good and useful thing – but really, what else could this be? You’re not leaving me an out, Senator Feinstein. You’ve boxed yourself up and put a bow on top.

(Thanks goes to Info Wars USA for posting this article.)


For the record – in case I have not stated this for the record enough yet – I don’t believe any sort of federal assault weapons ban will have the desired effect of greatly reducing gun crime in the United States. To ban guns as a direct inference of the lessons taught to us by shootings such as the one in Newtown, Connecticut is to misread and misappropriate those lessons entirely. Guns are not the point of those events – they are incidental. However, if we are to have an assault weapons ban, it should be more effective than the toothless, contorted, and ineffectual Federal Assault Weapons Ban (technically known as the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act) of 1994, which is what President Obama has been pushing for in this area as part of his new gun-control initiative.

Alexander J. Smith of Blogcritics has some jargon-rich ideas for how we might do that in a way that might make some difference (though, in the opinion of this blog, not enough of a difference to sleep better at night):

With the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting still fresh, there may yet be enough impetus to make a federal assault weapon law stick, but before Congress can get to work on a bill, Washington needs a working definition to qualify a firearm as an “assault weapon”. Even if AWB ’94 were resurrected, its criterion for assault weapon was problematic because it relied heavily on how a firearm looked, not how it worked, and bore no weight on fully automatic weapons. A truly effective federal prohibition of assault weapons should qualify a firearm based on its design, intended use, and common application in the field by its intended user. In addition, the law would need to be expansive enough to address subtypes of assault rifles, including service rifles, designated marksman rifles (DMR), battle rifles, and carbines. 

So if you want to craft a standard for assault rifles, a good place to start is with the weapon that began it all. Designed to straddle the line between close range submachine guns and longer range rifles, the Sturmgewehr 44 (StG44 for short) is considered by many to be the first modern era assault rifle. The StG44 had the following specifications:

  • Full length (from stock to barrel) of 37″
  • 16.5″ barrel
  • Selectable fire between full-auto and semi-auto
  • Automatic fire rate of 550-600 rounds/min
  • Used a 30 round box magazine
  • Effective up to 300m (auto) or 600m (semi auto)
  • Muzzle Velocity of 685m/s

Read More

From an article by Tim Carney at the Washington Examiner that, sadly, I happen to agree with:

Finally, Obama’s policy prescriptions are grounded in what’s politically popular rather than what would effectively address the problem of gun violence. Obama repeatedly called for a ban on “military-style assault weapons.” This is not actual class of weapons — this is a rhetorical device to make some rifles sound scary.

Scariness is what “assault weapons” talk is all about. The 1994 “assault weapons ban” didn’t have a real definition of assault weapon. The law listed a bunch of guns that would be illegal and then laid out some criteria for what could make a gun be an “assault weapon.” The qualifications were mostly cosmetic: A rifle could become illegal if you added a flash suppressor; it could become legal if you removed a bayonet.

And restricting rifle ownership has very little bearing on curbing murders. According to FBI data, rifles are responsible for less than 3 percent of all U.S. murders for which the murder is weapon is known. You are five times more likely to be killed by a knife or a blade than by a rifle. Handguns, the data show, are used in a vast majority of gun murders. But handguns don’t look as scary as the AR-15.

Many on today’s Left flatter themselves as being more “reality-based” than the Right. Liberals care more about science, data and the empirically proven, you’ll hear from MSNBC or the New Republic.

But Obama’s arguments for gun control aren’t based on data or logic. They are based on aspersions, emotion and popular fears. In other words, it’s politics as usual.

Read More

Thanks goes out to Grandpa Carl for dropping this atomic knowledge bomb on me, though I was once again unable to find specific attribution for who compiled this and set it up.

I’ve written before about my opinion regarding the current gun-control debate in general and the proposed assault-weapons ban specifically (which you can find here, and also here and here, and probably elsewhere on this blog). If you’re still unconvinced, I present a very scholarly essay on the assault-weapons aspect of the debate, as presented in a slide show for your visual learning pleasure.


Many people – including many in my own family – have been occupied of late with pushing for an assault weapons ban, as I have previously written about. Not the least of these is Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has proposed such a ban in the wake of the horrific Newtown shooting. Her proposal is actually a renewal of the 1994 assault weapons ban signed into law by President Bill Clinton, which expired after ten years and has yet to be renewed despite attempts by Democrats to do so. Feinstein took up the initiative in the wake of the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado last summer, and again after Newtown in December.

The ban and Feinstein have been in the news more recently due to a divisive letter written very publicly to her and posted on the CNN iReport site, by U.S. Marine Corporal Joshua Boston. The letter has rallied some support from the right – mostly in the blogosphere – due to Boston’s adamantly stated refusal to submit to any kind of weapons ban. In an interview about the letter, Boston told Breitbart that the only restrictions he would support is (emphasis his) “one in which only VIOLENT felons are prevented from purchasing or possessing a firearm.”

Titled “No, ma’am,” here is the letter in its entirety:

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

Read More

John Hively's Blog: News and Analysis of the War Against the Middle Class

By The World's Most Accurate Economic Forecaster Since 1989.

Digestible Politics

Politics Made Easy!

The PEEL Literary Arts Magazine

your voice. your vision.

the first casualty.

irregular digressions into politics, media, and tech

The Secular Jurist

Social commentary from a perspective of moral secularism

TED Blog

The TED Blog shares interesting news about TED, TED Talks video, the TED Prize and more.

Regaining the Center

Commentary on the Politics of Division


Ending government prohibition on guns and drugs.

The Political Equation

The intersection of data and intuition