A Plea for Restoring Sanity

 

Mark W. Danielson

The above photos show a dog riddled with twenty-nine BBs.  If they came from birdshot, it means she was shot twice.  If it was from a BB gun, then she was shot twenty-nine times.  Amazingly, she survived and went on to be adopted by my daughter who had no knowledge of this horrific act until her dog had X-rays.  As of now, there is no plan to remove them due to the possibility of inflicting more damage.  Sadly, there is no way to predict how long her dog has been suffering or if it was lead shot that could lead to lead poisoning, but the two of them share a very close bond.  Truly they were meant for each other. 

When my daughter sent me these X-rays, I angrily wondered what kind of monster squeezes the trigger on an innocent and defenseless dog, and then I realized it’s the same type that shoots kids and teachers in elementary schools, high schools, or randomly shoots from college towers.  Clearly the first solution in preventing more killing sprees is to identify people like this dog shooter and give them psychological help before they explode and cause another massacre.  As a minimum, they should never have access to a firing range or weapons.

I am a strong believer in the right to bear arms, but unless we are facing a Zombie Apocalypse, I fail to see why any individual needs a large-magazine, rapid-firing assault weapon.  For the purpose of this article, I will arbitrarily define large magazine as anything over nine rounds, and classify any weapon having more than nine rounds as an assault weapon because no one needs more than that to go hunting.  But as the NRA will point out, the real danger behind any weapon is the person pulling the trigger.  I agree, and go on to say that our system has failed miserably in identifying people with violent tendencies.  Even worse, the records of those who have been clinically identified as disturbed are sealed to protect their civil rights, which means there is no way authorities can be proactive.  Only after a mass murder like the Connecticut shooting are the details of the deranged assailant’s background revealed.  If we started seeing these people as domestic terrorists, we might have a shot at preventing future killings.  When we finally realize that protecting the general public is more important than protecting a potential murderer’s civil rights, we might have a fighting chance.  Agree or not, this is definitely something to think about the next time you cast your ballots.  

The great irony is those who fear authorities will be delving into their personal information willingly share their life’s story on social media sites.  They complain about Big Brother’s security cameras and then rant when criminals are released because video didn’t record their crimes.  Neighbors complain to authorities when they were not warned that convicted rapists and child molesters are living among them and yet these same people rush to protect criminals who claim their civil rights were violated.  What will it take to realize that only those people who violate the law have reason to fear increased scrutiny? 

 

The first step in restoring order is to enforce existing laws, not create new ones as a reaction to public outcry.  The second is to restore censorship to enhance decent core values.  People are far less tolerant now than when I was a child, and a big reason is electronic stimulation and media sensationalism.  Thanks to texting and social media, bullying has gone from school playgrounds to cyberspace.  Movies, television shows, and video games have not only become increasingly violent and graphic, they encourage disrespectful behavior.  Music has gone from innocent teen romances to explicit commentary on abusing women, doing drugs, killing bitches, and language so foul they require warning labels, and yet we protect all of this in the name of Freedom of Speech.  So before we blame everything on the criminally insane, it’s time we identify how we can restore sanity.  Before this can happen, we must first accept the blame for letting our society go mad.  Until we regain our work ethic and refine our scruples, more mass killings will be coming to a theater near you. 

By nature of their jobs, law enforcement and military personnel will always have a need for improved multi-magazine assault weapons.  On the contrary, someone who shoots a young dog may also possess the mental capacity for riddling humans with bullets.  If you are against assault weapons, then ask your elected officials to explain why they lifted the ban.  With the New Year upon us, now seems like a good time for meaningful change.     

    

Understanding Assault Weapon Bans

by Ben Small

Many folks don't understand the 1994 Clinton Assault Weapons Ban, nor do they understand what are meant by the terms "Assault Weapons" or "pre-ban," nor do they understand what risks still await one who wants to add some cosmetic touches to their so-called Assault Weapon, even though the 1994 ban expired on September 13, 2004. I'll try to explain the basics here. But before I begin, please pardon the complexity and idiotic nature of these measures. Congress passed them, not me. And these laws have done just about nothing to stop crime.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban pushed by Clinton and enacted by Congress banned specific guns made by specific manufacturers. These weapons, all semi-automatic in nature - meaning they fire one shot with one trigger pull - included the specific models and manufacturers' names, and it included a catch-all for any other weapons which carried characteristics of those weapons. So, the definition of weapons included those specifically named and any others which fit this language:

A semi-automatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

1) a folding or telescoping stock;
2) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
3) a bayonet mount;
4) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor,, and
5) a grenade launcher.

All but the grenade launcher are regarded by gunners as cosmetic issues. But having a grenade launcher itself, as long as your rifle didn't have one of the other listed cosmetic parts, was not banned.

Oh goodie! I could use a grenade launcher on my rifles, and Congress doesn't seem to think that, alone, is a bad thing...

Similarly, the ban with respect to pistols covered a semi-automatic that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

1) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
2) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer. (Nevermind that silencers are regulated anyway by the National Firearms Act);
3) a shroud that is attached to, or partial or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned;
4) a manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded,; and
5) a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm (popularly called a "machine gun")

These definitions were taken directly from the Act. Additionally, magazines were banned if they could hold more than ten rounds, but of course, there was no limit to the number of ten-round magazines one could buy or carry.

There were also provisions covering certain kinds of shotguns, but enough is enough. You'll get the picture without adding the restrictions on shotguns.

The ban prohibited manufacture, transfer, or possession of a "semi-automatic assault weapon." But there were some exceptions to this part. It was legal to possess a weapon owned prior to the date of enactment, and it was legal to purchase a weapon made before October 1, 1993.

The legislation was largely regarded as a joke. So much notice was provided of these provisions, and the Act took so long to pass that manufacturers ramped up production of banned weapons prior to October 1, 1993 such that weapons covered by the act and manufactured before that date are still easy to find in new, unfired condition even now. Indeed, I bought a new pre-ban Bushmaster AR-15 legally in 2000. And the gun store from which I bought it had a huge collection of new, unfired pre-ban weapons for sale.

Interpretation of the Act is tricky. For instance, if you bought a kit, pre-October 1, 1993, which if assembled before that date would be a legal Semi-automatic Assault Weapon, but waited until after that date to assemble the kit into a weapon, your completed weapon assembly would violate federal law, because the law covered complete weapons, not kits or parts for them.

So, your perp or protag has a kit for an imported AK-47, or already has one and wants to add some cosmetic features. Is he going to violate federal law if he does so, now that the infamous Clinton Assault Weapons Ban has expired?

Well, gee, he'd better be damn careful, or the ATF (remember Waco?) will come knocking on his door. Why? Because of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and BATFE regulations thereunder, which make criminal the assembly of a rifle or shotgun using more than ten of the following imported parts:

(1) Frames, receivers, receiver
castings, forgings, or castings.
(2) Barrels.
(3) Barrel extensions.
(4) Mounting blocks (trunnions).
(5) Muzzle attachments.
(6) Bolts.
(7) Bolt carriers.
(8) Operating rods.
(9) Gas pistons.
(10) Trigger housings.
(11) Triggers.
(12) Hammers.
(13) Sears.
(14) Disconnectors.
(15) Buttstocks.
(16) Pistol grips.
(17) Forearms, handguards.
(18) Magazine bodies.
(19) Followers.
(20) Floor plates.

Understand, it's perfectly legal to add these parts or build a kit, as long as they're U.S.-made parts, which of course, are identical or better than the foreign parts. You just can't build or modify any semi-automatic assault weapon if doing so will mean you then have more than ten of these imported parts on your weapon. You can buy a completely assembled imported new pre-ban AK-47; you just can't build or assemble one with more than ten of these parts imported.

How much sense does this make? How would you like to do ten years in federal prison and pay an enormous fine just because you decided to replace your U.S.-made unfinished wood stock on your AK-47 with a nice laminated foreign stock? Or, as reflected in this picture, you wanted to match your fore-ends to your stock, and replaced one or the other (or maybe both) with a foreign-made part?


How's that for Buy America enforcement?