Warning about “weapons designed for the theater of war,” President Obama on Wednesday called for immediate action on a new Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He said that “more of our fellow Americans might still be alive” if the original assault weapons ban, passed in 1994, had not expired in 2004. Last month, in the wake of the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) promised to introduce an updated version of the ban. She too warned of the threat posed by “military weapons.”
After the nightmare of Newtown, their concern is understandable. Yet despite being at the center of the gun-control debate for decades, neither President Obama nor Ms. Feinstein (the author of the 1994 legislation) seems to understand the leading research on the effects of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. In addition, they continue to mislabel the weapons they seek to ban.
Ms. Feinstein points to two studies by criminology professors Chris Koper and Jeff Roth for the National Institute of Justice to back up her contention that the ban reduced crime. She claims that their first study in 1997 showed that the ban decreased “total gun murders.” In fact, the authors wrote: “the evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero).”
In the wake of the horrific elementary-school shootings in Newtown, Conn., last month, many Americans, desperate to do something in response, have decided that much stricter gun control is the answer. Democrats have proposed reinstating the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein has proposed legislation that would even restrict the use of some semiautomatic handguns.
As a former prosecutor in Washington, D.C., who enforced firearms and ammunition cases while a severe local gun ban was still in effect, I am skeptical of the benefits that many imagine will result from additional gun-control efforts. I dislike guns, but I believe that a nationwide firearms crackdown would place an undue burden on law enforcement and endanger civil liberties while potentially increasing crime.
Maybe someone needs to shove a cattle prod up his rear and twist it around a bit. He certainly would enjoy that according to his own reasoning. One can wonder what kind of past this judge has for making such grotesque claims.
Judge claims women ‘enjoy being raped’: Indonesian high court justice sparks outrage with sick joke while being interviewed for supreme court job
Nine men groomed and horrifically abused vulnerable girls a court has heard
One victim was forced to miscarry after her attacker used an ‘instrument’ on her in a home abortion
It has been claimed they used ‘extreme physical and sexual violence’, often beating and burning them as they raped their victims
It was claimed the girls were often given so many drugs that they were ‘barely aware’
The abuse is alleged to have taken place over a period of eight years
PUBLISHED: 13:00, 15 January 2013 |
Under Obama the U.S. is no longer the same country it used to be and is becoming a police state. You are now arrested for protesting while extremist dictators are free to come and go as they please, and bring their hate ideology on American shores.
This report passed us in December. This is Dr. Salma Abu Elmagd an American/Egyptian citizen who was arrested in New York city for exercising her constitutional right in a peaceful demonstration against Mr. Essam Eleryan visit to the USA.
Leftists shriek when any cuts are made to “free” programs and to welfare, but when a man’s ability to work is literally cut off, radio silence, or at best, “not all muslims are like that.” No, not all. The heroic defiant ones are not like that. But the ones who are devout and follow normal Islamic law- sharia- are. This is not an aberration of Islam. It is good old fashioned god fearing sharia.