Finally Waving the White Flag on the Assault Weapons Ban

Wall Street Journal ^ | 12 September, 2014 | Reid J. Epstein

[Navy Patriot]

trust me, the anti firearms folks won’t quit until we are all disarmed or they are all dead

Let's see, which one would I choose, ....?

[Blue Collar Christian]

Well, I guess I go along with one of their proposals, since there has been a rash of mass murders by teens under the age of 16 years using machine guns.

Do I need a sarcasm tag?

[Iron Munro]

‘Assault weapon’ on the other hand is a nebulous concept that means whatever a politician wants it to mean.

There it is !!!

[TLI]

The anti-gunners are changing their focus to gun license(s) and universal back-round checks.

Exactly.

Going after the "object" did not work because the object is not subjective and only facts apply.

If one goes after a person (expanded "universal" background check) then the criteria becomes subject to "interpretation."

John Doe could do this or that because he got mad at his dog once.

John Doe could do this or that because a shrink told him to take anti-depressants, which John flushed down the tolerate after two weeks because they are crap.

John Doe is "ineligible" for his Second Amendment rights because he got in a big fight when he was a teenager...

The list will instantly become endless and the bar will be set by anonymous "panels" that will set the bar wherever they like and for whomever they chose.

Think IRS...

.

[longtermmemmory]

or ban other parts needed.

[Pollster1]

“The answer is not that assault weapons aren’t dangerous and people having access to them is a good thing,” Mr. Gerney said in an interview this week. “There are other things that we can do to lessen the risks of assault weapons short of banning them. … When you’re making policy, it’s always a mix of what’s going to have a biggest positive impact and what is practical and politically possible.”

That is exactly the wrong answer. Whether a superficially patriotic American wants to ban flag burning (offensive but clearly political expression and thus protected "speech" under the First Amendment) or a liberal traitor wants to limit or ban political speech or the funding of political speech (again, clearly protected), the correct answer is not to find a way around our God-given human rights. The correct answer is to honor the Constitution and not even attempt to get around these basic rights.

All restrictions on free speech, short of restricting speech that poses an imminent danger or contains direct threats are unconstitutional. All restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional. All new restrictions should be resisted with all our power. All existing restrictions should be continuously challenged and eventually rolled back. The other side is wrong to attempt to get around the Bill of Rights, and those leading our opponents are trying to limit these rights for evil reasons. Some of their followers are evil, while others are deluded, but there are no informed people working against basic human rights who are working for the side of good.

[School of Rational Thought]

Nobody needs military grade weapons! (sarc)