John:

I love your show, but you need to get a short reality check, especially when discussing guns. I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but it addresses several points that were raised during Friday’s show and I was unable to address. Have to break this into sections to accommodate the editor.

Cisco? Nothin’ but love, brother. You and I are right there on this issue.

The "AWB" (1994 Assault Weapons Ban) was a stage production that held little if any value in reality, and simply provided the "well meaning" politicians the chance to say that they "did something", even if it had no real effect on the street.

So-called “assault weapons” are functionally identical to many “hunting rifles” – their inclusion or exclusion is based solely on cosmetic features, rather than any measurable difference in lethality.

One of those differences is a bayonet lug.

C’mon. When was the last time you heard of a “drive-by” bayoneting, or any bayoneting for that matter?

According to FBI and US Department Of Justice statistics, so-called "assault weapons" are used to commit less than 2 percent of all murders.

Of course, the fact that rifles in general aren't used to commit the majority of murders probably has something to do with that.

Even the late Mike Royko opined that the AWB - and the politicians pushing it - were frauds, in his article "Ban On Macho Weapons Assaults Common Sense". Printed on May 13th, 1994, the article states:

"Fact is, these weapons - as frightening as they look - are used in only a small number of killings. The weapon of choice is still the standard handgun. In Chicago, for example, the hands-up favorite is the .38. Which makes sense. You can carry your handgun in your pocket, your purse, your belt, or a shoulder holster...If anything, Chicago police stats show that there are all sorts of mundane or bizarre weapons used in more crimes than the weapons that Congress just voted to ban.

Cutlery: the standard kitchen knife, the boning knife, the carving knife are far more popular. So is the baseball bat, fists and feet, and the automobile...

The congressmen who voted for the assault weapon ban know that it won't make even a tiny dent in the crime rate. But they say it is a meaningful first step.

Those who voted against it said they same thing, and they also know it is a meaningful first step. They fear that the next step will be other guns. Then others. And the ultimate goal of the anti-gun lobby is to ban the private ownership of all weapons.

That is their ultimate goal, although the anti-gun people won't admit it. It would be foolish strategy.

But nothing else makes sense. If people are shooting each other with pistols of .22 and .38 caliber, why the big deal about exotic, expensive weapons that few people own and fewer use in crimes?

Because, as politicians, they have to do something, even if it means almost nothing.

And tomorrow, Eddie might go berserk and kill Edna in their kitchen. Maybe with a pot, a paring knife, or his old .22.

But Congress will have done its job and the sound bites will be all over the tube.

And we not only pay these guys, but give them free parking?"

Most of the "fear" among the general non-shooting population concerning semi-automatic guns comes from a lack of familiarity as well as some intentional mis-information.

Just so you know your history, the anti-freedom folks like Brady, Thousand Moms and Violence Policy Center had been spinning this whole issue for years before the '94 AWB.

Need proof? How about their own words - from the director of the VPC himself:

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988

As for the sponsors of these bills truly being concerned about crime, knowledgeable about the issue and claiming that these guns have no "sporting purpose"?

The National Rifle & Pistol Championships held annually at Camp Perry, OH, require competitors to use "service rifles" - that is, weapons that have been used by our country's armed forces. These include the M1 Garand, the M14 (available in semi-automatic form as the M1A), and the M16 (available in semi-automatic form as the AR-15).

This competition is an internationally recognized event, drawing competitors from around the world.

However, the fact that shooting is a sport is insignificant to the anti-freedom types.
Consider the duplicitous language included in a recently proposed ban:

"(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."

HUH?

“…a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event”?

That's akin to saying that just because it has four wheels, is motor driven and you can ride in it it's not a vehicle.

Displaying her knowledge during an interview, the original sponsor of that particular bill referred to a barrel shroud (a perforated metal jacket around the front of a gun) as "a shoulder thingy that goes up", confirming the classic priorities of emotions and symbolism over facts and logic when it comes to liberals enacting legislation.

As far as the "usefulness" of these guns? Do you remember the "Rodney King Riots" that occurred in South Central LA, 1992?

There was a photo on the cover of a newspaper showing several Korean store owners who were legally defending their lives and property.

Their weapons of choice to deal with the threat at hand? Several semi-automatic firearms that later wound up being named "assault weapons". And when earthquakes hit in 1994, many were once again defending their lives and property with those "evil black guns".

But with the ban on so-called "assault weapons" being discussed, the powerful images of law abiding citizens actually <gasp> using those "evil gunz" were kept under wraps the second time around.

In fact, despite the increased availability of historical news media thanks to the Web, try and find that front page picture of those brave shopkeepers anywhere even today.

Now I must ask you - would you rather have someone else make a choice as to what is "necessary" for you to have, or would you like to make that choice for yourself, as long as you use the item in question within legal bounds?  And why should the number of guns a person own be of any concern to anyone else, as long as they are obtained and possessed legally? Should we restrict the number of cars someone can own, or books, using the argument that you can only drive or read one at a time?

Given the obvious distaste most of the incoming administration have for anything that goes boom (whether legally owned or not), I think it would be akin to a die hard vegan being allowed to decide how much meat we should eat.

And before you dismiss the concerns of gun owners about the incoming administration as “right wing wackiness”, consider these things:

1) Mr. Obama served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, the largest private funder of anti-gun research in the country.

2) During the primaries, Mr. Obama was quoted by the Pittsburgh Tribune - Review as saying: "I am not in favor of concealed weapons…I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html

That's right - the one law that any body of politicians has passed that has actually been proven to reduce crime, and he wants to do away with it, based on a "potential atmosphere" rather than proven and reproducible facts.

3) Mr. Obama and economist Dr. John Lott (More Guns, Less Crime, Freedomnomics) met at the University of Chicago in the 1990's, and had this exchange according to Dr. Lott:

"Indeed, when I introduced myself to him, he said, "Oh, you are the gun guy."

I responded, "Yes, I guess so." His response, as I recall it, was, "I don't believe that people should be able to own guns."

When I said it might be fun sometime to talk about the question and his support of Chicago's lawsuit against gunmakers, he simply grimaced and turned away, ending the conversation."

It will be, if nothing else, in interesting next four years. I only hope my children and grandchildren’s freedom will not be lessened, with the untoward result of “hope” and “change” being an untenable “future”.

See you guys Monday morning.

Quoted:


You must not have heard the shows.

Quoted:
As always, great writing Tango.

Quoted:
Who the fuck are they.


AFAIAC, there is no talk show worth listening to except Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, or serious right (like Liddy when he was on).