Part 2: Reaction to the Bill
Scott Howard Phillips
January 28, 2013
Welcome back to the Breaking Down The Feinstein AWB series. In this two-part series, I have analyzed the bill and presented it in a hopefully
easy-to-understand format. If you have not read Part 1, then click here to read it, because it forms the foundation for this article. Part 2 is my reaction to this awful monstrosity and Constitution-abolishing bill. Like Part 1, this article will be a long read, so make sure you have plenty of time to read it.
Let’s jump in, shall we?
Right from the beginning this bill makes my blood boil. The purpose of the bill is the following:
To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.
I’m sorry, but what part of “shall not be infringed” do you NOT understand? The whole point of the 2nd amendment is that the right to keep and bear arms is unlimited. After all, that’s the whole point of a right; it is something that government cannot restrict, as it is God-given, not government given. If rights were defined the way Feinstein defines them, then the government can restrict rights of freedom of speech, or the right of people to be protected against unreasonable seizures and searches. Any freedom lover would naturally recoil against such thinking, so why do we treat guns differently?
And in response to the inevitable anti-gun screaming that will happen in the comments on this page, rocket launchers, tanks, and jet fighters are immensely expensive; most people won’t have one, so it’s a moot issue. As for nuclear bombs, no one should have them, not even government, but that’s an another article for another day.
Honestly, I could use the rest of this article talking about this point. But I won’t, as there’s still a lot more to respond to.
Let’s talk about the 157 banned firearms, shall we? That’s the first piece of information that came out of this bill, before the whole bill even came out. You’ve seen the banned guns list in Part 1 of this series and elsewhere, so there’s no need to repeat them here.
The Hi-Point Carbine is a rifle that is chambered in 9mm, .40S&W, or .45ACP. Depending on the calibers it’s chambered it in, it holds a 10 or 9-shot magazine, and as far as I’m aware, you can’t get extended magazines for them.
The Kel-Tec Sub-2000 is a rifle that is chambered in either 9mm or .40S&W. Depending on the specification of the gun, it can take Glock, Beretta 92/96, S&W59/4006, or Sig 226 magazines.
The point I’m trying to make here is that both guns are no more dangerous or lethal than the average handgun. You might get better accuracy out of both guns than in handguns, as they have a longer barrel, but that’s about it. Heck, the Hi-Point Carbine has a 10-shot or less magazine, which means it would not have been banned under the first AWB!
Another problem with this bill is that it bans firearms from sale that aren’t even made anymore. The TEC-9, TEC-9DC, Encom MP-9 and MP-45 are, to the best of my knowledge, no longer manufactured. I guess you could find some used ones, but those would be covered under private sales, which means a background check has to be done on the person buying it. It does not make it illegal to buy or own under this bill. So specifically banning those firearms for sale is completely pointless.
Okay, so those parts of the bill are completely stupid, but what about those evil, black, scary semi-automatic rifles?
Well, it may interest you to know that in 2011, murderers that were armed with rifles of all types killed 323 people. This comes from that oh-so-right-wing-crackpot-and-gun-nut website, the Federal Bureau of Investigation Expanded Homicide Data Table 8. To put that in perspective, more people were killed in 2011 (and the years preceding it to 2007) with knives, blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.), OR “Personal weapons” (ie; hands, feet, fists, etc.) If you’re wondering where all those Facebook photos and posts of knives, hammers, and fists killing more people than rifles are getting their data from, this is where.
Also, note the wording “rifles of all types.” This means semi-automatic rifles and bolt-action rifles, single-shot rifles, and other rifles. This means that the number of people killed by people with semi-automatic rifles is even lower than that number. Let’s also remember that this is out of a population of over 300 million, which means that banning rifles would barely impact crime and murder rates in the United States.
“But Feinstein said that over 300 people have been killed and 400 injured with assault weapons since the ban ended,” says the anti-gunner that for some reason is reading a pro-gun article on a conservative web site.
Okay, let’s look at that. According to Feinstein’s website, more than 350 people have been killed and 450 injured by “assault weapons” ever since the ban ended.
The ban ended in 2004. The 2012 crime figures, as far as I’m aware at the time of this writing, have not been released yet, so for the sake of argument, let’s assume that those deaths are between 2004 and 2011. That is a 7 year period. 350/7 = 50 people killed per year, on average. 450/7 = 64.3 people injured per year, on average. This is so insignificant in terms of reducing crime that it is laughable.
“But what about the children?” the anti-gunner asks.
3,300 children are murdered by abortion per day. If you want to really save the lives of children, I suggest you protest abortion.
“Crime is getting higher because the AWB expired!”
Let’s look at the chart again, shall we? From 2007 to 2011, there has been a steady decrease in all murder rates, including deaths by murderers armed with rifles, handguns, and shotguns. At the same time, the number of AR-15’s and other semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic handguns sold has exploded over the years. Sorry, anti-gunners, but John Lott was right: more guns equals less crime.
Before I move on to the next part of the bill, I just want to say that all deaths, and murders in particular, are sad events, no matter how few of them there are. Losing a loved one is a terrible feeling no matter how they die; how much worse must it feel if they are murdered. But this bill will not save those lives; in fact, more people will die because their capacity to defend themselves has been lessened.
Let’s set the record straight. A 30-round AR-15 magazine is not a high capacity magazine. It is a standard capacity magazine, as it is what it comes sold with and was designed for. A Glock 19 15-round magazine is not a high capacity magazine; it is a standard capacity magazine. A high capacity magazine for an AR-15 would be a 100 round beta mag. A high capacity magazine for a Glock 19 would be the 33 round 9mm magazine that was designed for the Glock 18. We must reject the terms that the anti-gunners and the ignorant use, or we’re not going to win this fight.
The magazine ban is stupid for a couple of reasons. The first two reasons the magazine ban is stupid is because it limits people’s effectiveness in defending themselves, and a mass murderer is just going to bring a lot of magazines with him when he goes out on his rampage.
“Wait a minute, Scott. Aren’t those two arguments contradictory?”
No, they’re not. Let me explain.
When you’re in a self-defense situation, you’re usually taken by surprise. Reactions are fast and coordination is not at its best, as adrenaline is rushing throughout your body and your heartbeat quickens. A magazine change which would be simple at the range now becomes difficult. In a gun fight or other self-defense situation, you want as many rounds in your magazine for the following reasons:
The core of the problem with magazine bans for civilians is twofold: you do not choose the engagement. The bad guy does. It would be nice if you were attacked when at a machine gun shoot with the attacker downrange, but that’s never going to happen. Chances are, you’re going to be attacked when you’re away from home. You are also not a soldier, so you can’t carry around a tactical vest; you’re usually going to carry a handgun with two spare magazines. Some carry more, but that’s what gun owners usually carry when conceal carrying. Therefore, you want more ammo.
Now, what I just said does not apply to the mass murderer. The mass murder chooses the engagement, and in a massive majority of cases, the mass murderer chooses gun-free zones. The reasoning for doing this is that in these zones, there will be absolutely zero resistance. That, coupled with the fact that these individuals are sick people who have no problem with killing people, means that they are under little, if any stress. This means that for them, magazine changes are easy. Even when untrained, it takes seconds for a magazine change to happen.
This means that under a magazine ban, a mass murderer is just going to bring a whole bunch of loaded magazines with him and go to town. There will be no time to tackle the murderer, as he will quickly swap out a magazine and keep killing.
So that’s how those two arguments are not contradictory.
Furthermore, the magazine ban is stupid because it is so easy to make magazines. If you have a basic knowledge of metalwork, you can easily build your own magazines (and your own guns for that matter.) After all, a magazine is a few pieces of sheet metal and a spring. In addition to that, Defense Distributed is developing files for an AR magazine that can be printed in a 3-D printer. Once that is fully functional, standard-capacity magazines will be impossible to ban, because anyone with the right files and a 3-D printer can crank them out. And as we all know, when something’s on the Internet, it’s never coming off it.
Let’s not even get into the fact that criminals will still get their hands on magazines, guns, and ammunition via the black market.
So that’s why this magazine ban is stupid and not going to work.
Under the Feinstein bill, guns that have a detachable magazine and have 1 other feature are banned. You’ve seen the features list in Part 1, so I won’t repeat them here. The reason why this ban on certain features is stupid is because it these features are, for the most part, cosmetic. They do not make the round that the gun fires more deadly.
There are two things that aren’t really cosmetic. One is the threaded barrel, because it can be used to accept a suppressor. But that’s not a bad thing, because even with hearing protection, guns are loud and damage your ears, giving you hearing problems later in life. Suppressors help avoid this. (And yes, they are legal, they’re just Class 3 items, and therefore heavily regulated by the ATF.)
The other is the flash suppressor, and all that does is prevent less gas from being blown back in your face, and to prevent you from being blinded when you fire the gun in low light (such as in a home defense situation.) Again, it doesn’t make the gun more deadly.
Now, do these banned features actually affect anything in the gun market. You betcha it does. Let me give you an example which will help demonstrate this.
Back in the fall I heard of this handgun called the FNP-45 Tactical. It is an amazing .45 ACP handgun, perfect for home defense. It is fully ambidextrous out of the box, so if you’re left handed you can pick it up and use it without changing anything. It includes a threaded barrel, so you can attach a suppressor to it. It has Trijicon high-rise night sights, so you can not only shoot in the dark, but still aim with a suppressor on.
The slide has a cutout on it, so you can attach a mini red dot sight on it (it doesn’t come with the gun), which will co-witness with the night sights (and you don’t need to replace the back sights like on some other guns.) Most amazingly, it comes with three 15-round magazines, which for a .45 handgun is completely unheard of. The only gun that comes close is a Glock 21, which holds 13-round magazines. The FNP-45 Tactical is around a thousand dollars, but for me it’s worth every penny.
The FNP-45 Tactical will be banned under the Feinstein bill, all because it has a threaded barrel.
You cannot even begin to imagine my frustration with this bill. This is just one example of what will happen under the Feinstein bill.
I reject the label of semiautomatic weapons as “assault weapons.” I am now calling semi-auto rifles “Emergency Defense Rifles” because that’s the reason most people buy them. People buy these rifles so that they can protect themselves in an emergency situation.
Let me give you an example of such a situation. In 1992, the Rodney King riots happened in Los Angeles. The riots were so big and so violent that the LAPD actually retreated from the city, abandoning the citizens that lived there.
Stores were looted and buildings were burned down. A lot of people died during those riots, but there was one group of people that did not die. Korean shop owners got their guns and banded together, protecting their stores. They were armed with shotguns, rifles, and yes, AR-15’s and AK-47’s. Not one of their stores burned down or were looted, because one sight of a bunch of armed Koreans sent the rioters running.
I reject the “needs” argument that anti-gunners love to use, but I’d love to see these anti-gunners tell those Koreans that they didn’t “need” Emergency Defense Rifles.
If you’re a conservative and you’ve read Section 2, you may have noticed that I did not include the inability to resist to tyranny because of this ban as part of the stupidity of the gun ban list. Trust me, I haven’t forgotten; I just decided to put it in a separate section.
Now, let me be clear before I speak on this subject. I am not advocating revolution against the government. We’re not at that point anyway, and I personally struggle between the desire for freedom and obeying sections of the Scripture like Romans 13:1-7. However, I shall discuss this, as this is one of the reasons that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd amendment.
I have spoken of this previously in “Why what the Founders believed matters” (January 25th, 2012) but I will speak of it again here. One of the reasons the Founders wrote the 2nd amendment was to deter a future tyrannical government. It is far easier for a tyrannical government to rule over an unarmed population than an armed one. The 2nd amendment would make would-be tyrants think twice about abolishing the Constitution and declaring a dictatorship. And if someone did institute a tyrannical government, the people could form a militia and overthrow the government.
Now, when I mention this point to anti-gunners, they usually come up with one of two arguments (or sometimes they bring up both.) The first argument is that tyranny would never happen in America. The second is that if it did, the resistance would be easily defeated because of America’s modern military might. These arguments are easily defeated; let me take them on one at a time:
Argument #1: Tyranny will never happen in America.
This argument is laughably silly to those who have studied history and human nature. However, as people honestly believe this, I can’t dismiss this out of hand; I have to respond to it.
Argument #2: Tyrants would win anyway.
I myself am skeptical of a conservative revolution against tyranny working. I think the cards are stacked against us and we would ultimately lose. However, it is not impossible, for the following reasons:
Now, again, I don’t advocate revolution, and I don’t know whether I’d participate in it myself. Most likely I’d stay out of it until it came to my front doorstep.
So what does this have to do with the Feinstein bill? Well, Emergency Defense Rifles are effective in defending yourself from tyranny. President Obama likes to say that the AR-15 is a weapon of war, and while the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle is not used in any military, it can be used for that purpose. I have already established in Section 2 that an AWB won’t reduce crime, and I doubt President Obama and Diane Feinstein are unaware of that fact. The real reason that they’re pushing this bill is so that it can bring us closer to total disarmament. If this bill passes, and another mass shooting happens, you will see these people say, “well, it’s because we didn’t take the guns away,” and they will put form measures for confiscation. This is not fear mongering, this is logic and being informed on the beliefs of President Obama and Senator Feinstein.
In an attempt to make this bill more palatable for gun owners, Feinstein has included a bunch of rifles and shotguns (over 2000) that are exempted from this bill by name. There are three basic problems with this:
Of course, if you’re a government official or law enforcement, none of what I say applies to you. The government can get whatever weapons they want. In an ugly twist of hypocrisy, the DHS referred to Emergency Defense Rifles as “Personal Defense Weapons.” So, for the government, semi-auto rifles are “Personal Defense Rifles” but for civilians, they are “assault rifles.” This hypocrisy is disgusting, and further divides the government from the citizens they are supposed to work for and protect their rights. A better armed-government makes conditions ripe for tyranny; see Section 6 of this article.
The Feinstein bill allows for grandfathering. Big whoop. It helps for those who already have their guns, but it effectively prevents newer generations from owning the most effective defensive weapons. Don’t take my word for it; Feinstein said that “the purpose of the bill is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time.”
Now, some may argue that under the Feinstein bill, I’d still be able to get grandfathered guns. Theoretically, that is true, but in practice, it isn’t. During the first AWB, so-called “pre-ban” guns were massively expensive; it cost thousands of dollars to buy a pre-ban AR-15 and AK-47, for example. Standard capacity and high capacity magazine were also insanely expensive. For those who speculated on this and stocked up on magazines and guns to sell, that’s good for business. For the rest of us, it’s bad; it means that unless the bill gets repealed in the future, I would never be able to own such weapons.
The bill will increase penalties for breaking the laws and spend more money on buy-back programs. Big whoop. It’s not going to solve anything or prevent any mass shootings. Mass murderers have already broken numerous laws when committing their crimes; adding tougher penalties isn’t going to do anything since most of them kill themselves at the scene anyway.
The conventional wisdom said that this bill will not pass in its current form. The conventional wisdom also said that about Obamacare, so you can forgive me for my distrust for the conventional wisdom. The Republicans won’t stand strong on this issue unless we force them to. In fact, the only thing that will defeat this bill are the efforts of good patriots and good Americans.
Get involved! Write your representatives, write the President and Vice President. They will not listen, but express your discontent anyway. Be polite but firm. Attend the protests that are being scheduled right now. Write your newspaper, talk with your friends, spread the word.
Feinstein’s bill is not the only game in town. There are numerous gun-control bills floating around in the House and Senate which will further infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. All bills that infringe on the 2nd amendment must be protested against and defeated.
There will be opposition. The anti-gun lobby is vast and well-funded. We will be denounced, we will be accused of being accessories to murder and wanting dead children. We will be told that we value guns more than life. It will be ugly.
I cannot promise victory in this fight. But remember this: it is not wrong to demand freedom. It is not wrong to defend our rights, as once we accept the loss of one of our rights, we establish a precedent for the further restriction of the rest of our rights. And indeed, without the 2nd amendment, we will lose the rest of our rights.
The facts and history are on our side. We must simply speak the truth without fear, and we’ll sway more people to our side. Perhaps we might even win this fight for freedom. But we will not know until we try.
I will keep fighting for all freedom, here on Canada Free Press and on Facebook. If you want to join me in my fight for freedom, or want to keep tabs on everything regarding my writing, then like my Facebook page.
As I concluded Part 1, I will close Part 2 and this series on Feinstein’s constitution-infringing bill:
“Be strong. Be of good courage! God bless America, Long Live the Republic.”
Scott Howard Phillips is studying Professional Writing at Taylor University. His passion is writing fiction, but he also enjoys writing book reviews and fighting for freedom through the mightiest of all weapons: the pen. He can be reached through his website, Facebook, and Twitter.