Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Reid Chickens Out on Assault Weapons Ban

U.S. Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid
Gun advocates won a battle at the U.S. Capitol yesterday.  Harry Reid ran away with his tail between his legs again and is refusing to bring a bill to the floor of the U.S. Senate with an assault weapons ban in it.

What's the point?  This new gun control bill, if it passes, will maybe have some increased background checks and things in it, but it won't have the ban of the most dangerous weapons.  All of this coming as it appears another college campus shooting was narrowly averted at the University of Central Florida when the possible perpetrator offed himself before carrying out his plan.

It's sad that there's no more bold leadership.  A bold Senate leader would have brought the bill with the assault weapons ban to the floor and fought like heck for it.  The victims of those weapons deserved that.  It may have failed, but it would have put on record those that opposed it on both sides of the aisle. Harry Reid's easy way out allows the Democrats who would have voted against an assault weapons ban to save some face.  I refuse to be convinced that there is any private citizen need for an assault rifle.  There just isn't, and I've seen many of the arguments.

I'll have a respectful conversation with you if you disagree with me, but there's simply no reason for Reid to chicken out like this and not bring a ban back to the floor.  We had an assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004, so this is not an unprecedented piece of legislation.

I salute Senator Dianne Feinstein for her work.  She understands what gun violence looks like.  It's clear that Harry Reid doesn't understand what leadership looks like.


Anonymous said...

There was no assault weapons ban from 1994-2004. There was a ban on bayonets, pistol grips, and flash suppressors. Many AKs, ARs, etc. were sold with modifications to fit the law, thus I wouldn't call the law a ban in any way at all.

People say these weapons should only be used on the battlefield, and the US isn't a battlefield. If that is true, then I would support a ban only if federal, state, and local law enforcement also give up their semi-automatic, magazine feed rifles. If common, law-abiding people don't need them, then civilian law enforcement doesn't need them either. They should be for military only.

SW Lane said...

I refuse to see the need for homosexuals to be married. There just isn't and I've seen all the arguments.
Sounds pretty ignorant, right? It is an opinion that a lot of people hold, similar to your views on 'assault weapons'.

Both opinions are equally ignorant.

Anonymous said...

Except that gay people are people and guns are things. If you value things over people, you will have to answer for that someday.

Jon Easter said...

I agree anonymous. Assault weapons win the race in danger to society. I stand by what I wrote.

SW Lane said...

So we blame an inanimate object as a danger to society and not the sociopath behind the object. And therefore attempt to criminalize said object, which criminalizes law abiding citizens. Similar to same sex marriage. How intellectually weak and hypocritical can you be? Oh well, the attempt failed, as it should have. Sorry. And anonymous, I dont know who someone who would value things over people would answer to.