As expected, the White House is putting the Rahm Emanuel crisis playbook into full force after the horrific events in Sandy Hook, Connecticut. Even if Congress is reluctant to pass any major piece of legislation on the matter, Vice President Joe Biden has already stated the White House is prepared to take nineteen executive actions in relation to gun control. Add this to the President’s proposals to limit the capacity of magazines to ten rounds and the implementation of a new assault weapons ban–not a reinstatement of the 1994 law. From whitehouse.gov:
Assault rifles have been used in several recent mass shootings. The shooters in Aurora and Newtown used the type of semiautomatic rifles that were the target of the assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004. That ban was an important step, but manufacturers were able to circumvent the prohibition with cosmetic modifications to their weapons. Congress must reinstate and strengthen the prohibition on assault weapons.
In addition, President Obama is looking to enact further restrictions on the possession and transfer of amor piercing ammunition. While even the White House wholly abstains from connecting events like Tucson, Aurora, and Sandy Hook to this type of ammunition, it’s implied that if you’re in support of amor-piercing rounds then you’re in favor of police officers being exposed to increased levels of risk. The mentality of both the White House and the gun-ban left is inherently driven by an anti-freedom agenda.
First, it’s important to ask, “Why stop at ten rounds of ammunition per clip? Why not eight, or seven, maybe even six?” The killers of Aurora and Sandy Hook selected their targets because of an overwhelming certainty that their victims would put up a low level of resistance. In the former case, it was a dark and crowded movie theater. In the latter case, it was an elementary school. Regardless of what size magazines they used, they were determined to destroy and they chose those who were most vulnerable.
It’s also important to debunk the metaphysically impossible–the “assault weapon.” Basically, the American left would have all believe that a piece of machinery, an inanimate object, a weapon, a noun, has the attributes and capabilities of a volitional consciousness, the ability to assault, a verb. It’s perfectly legitimate to argue that these types of weapons are absurd for deer hunting but such weapons are vital for defense. Perhaps not from a typical criminal, but from government–the institution throughout history (especially the twentieth century) which has exercised the ability and willingness to slaughter millions–whether constricted by borders or not.
This same principle can be applied to armor piercing ammunition. In fact, the matter of ammunition is arguably more critical because of policies being implemented by the U.S. Air Force. Last summer, Judge Andrew Napolitano published a piece about unmanned drones flying and spying above private property as part of a new domestic surveillance program.
If gun rights advocates wish to continue to bear arms then they must stop insisting on gun rights and begin insisting on their individual rights. The second amendment is not an instrument to ensure longstanding hunting traditions, it’s to prevent a totalitarian government from rising to power. It’s to make sure that the first amendment stays firmly seated where it is in the Constitution. When speech is censored, the only means to communicate is through the muzzle of a gun.
Besides, if President Obama truly cared about gun violence, he would’ve gutted the Department of Justice after the Mexican government discovered that guns used in a birthday party massacre, in which the victims were mostly teenagers, were supplied courtesy of Eric Holder and the Fast and Furious program.