Targeting "Assault Weapons" Again

Townhall ^ | 18 dec 2014 | Steve Chapman

[rellimpank]

The 1994 federal law banning "assault weapons" was a high point of the gun control movement and Bill Clinton's presidency. Signing the bill, he said it was the beginning of "our effort to restore safety and security to the people of this country." But something happened that he and his allies had not predicted: nothing.

Duke University scholars Philip Cook and Kristin Goss, who are sympathetic to gun control efforts, assessed the ban in a book published this year and concluded, "There is no compelling evidence that it saved lives." A 2004 study led by Christopher Koper of the University of Pennsylvania agreed: "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence."

Homicides did decline after it became law -- but they fell as well in the years after its 2004 expiration. From the standpoint of the safety and security of the American people, the prohibition was a non-event.

But gun control advocates, with a heroic disregard for real-world evidence, have never given up trying to get rid of these arms. The latest effort is a lawsuit filed by families of students and employees killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., two years ago.

[bmwcyle]

AMEN, they were crisis actors.

[Uversabound]

Alright Thundersleeps I should have waited for the experts.

Thanks for the data....

[HammerT]

This should be the term we apply to this subject:

Assault Weapon SCAM

It’s the simple concept of bait and switch – apply a different term for a Commonsense Civil Right:

“;Assault Weapon” – “for the right of the people to keep and bear arms”

“Hate Speech” – for the “freedom of speech”

That way the Commie-Left can pretend to still stand for Liberty [and thus be still ‘Liberal’] while at the same time seek to destroy these Commonsense Civil Rights