NY Post Calls for "Assault Weapon" Ban

[GOG-MD]

Although it's my understanding that the New York Post is generally on the conservative side (in contrast to the left-wing propaganda rag New York Times), they published an article yesterday in the wake of the shootings in El Paso and Dayton calling for Trump to ban "assault weapons".

The NYP editorial board said "the Second Amendment leaves ample room for regulating gun rights, just as every other constitutional right has its limits," and goes on to call for the return of an assault weapons ban.

From the article:

We know: That label doesn’t actually describe a clear class of guns. And that some studies show that the last ban, in effect from 1994 to 2004, had a limited impact. But that simply means the next ban should be better written, with a clear definition focused on factors like firepower — rate of fire, muzzle velocity, etc. — not on cosmetic features.

I agree that bans based on cosmetic features are stupid. But their call for bans based on factors like rate of fire and muzzle velocity are stupid too. What's the rate of fire of an AR-15? One round per trigger pull, just like any other semi-automatic firearm. A ban based on rate of fire is impossible, short of a blanket ban on semi-autos, which would ban most of the guns in this country. Ridiculous.

Okay then, a ban based on muzzle velocity? Nope - standard hunting rounds have a higher velocity than .223/5.56 or 7.62x39. A ban based on muzzle velocity is also a ban on all hunting rifles, and good luck with that.

Later in the article:

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to own “guns in common use.” That doesn’t cover the semiautomatic weapons regularly used only in mass shootings.

Really? These idiots really think that AR-15s aren't "guns in common use", and are "regularly used only in mass shootings"? There's a reason the AR-15 is called "America's rifle" - there are countless articles online about it being the most popular rifle in the country, owned and used by millions of law-abiding Americans for target shooting, hunting, competitions, home defense and more.

The NYP editorial board claims to speak from a place of reason and logic, but they clearly failed to do even cursory research to understand the truth on this one.

 

[Occam]

A ban based on rate of fire is impossible, short of a blanket ban on semi-autos, which would ban most of the guns in this country.

Now you're getting it.

 

[danb]

White supremacists will be the first to disarm, I am sure. They will totally turn them in, along with the full auto unregistered rifles buried in the back yard.

We should make sure that the victims are helpless.

 

[GOG-MD]

We should make sure that the victims are helpless.

Yeah, the left seems to think we should be more like Brazil, where common citizens can't own guns and the only people who have them are cops and criminals. Funny how Brazil has one of the highest rates of violent crime in the world.

 

[grimnar15]

A ban based on rate of fire is impossible, short of a blanket ban on semi-autos, which would ban most of the guns in this country. Ridiculous.

Banning semi automatic rifles is the goal.

 

[CrueChief]

Although it's my understanding that the New York Post is generally on the conservative side (in contrast to the left-wing propaganda rag New York Times), they published an article yesterday in the wake of the shootings in El Paso and Dayton calling for Trump to ban "assault weapons".

The NYP editorial board said "the Second Amendment leaves ample room for regulating gun rights, just as every other constitutional right has its limits," and goes on to call for the return of an assault weapons ban.

From the article:



I agree that bans based on cosmetic features are stupid. But their call for bans based on factors like rate of fire and muzzle velocity are stupid too. What's the rate of fire of an AR-15? One round per trigger pull, just like any other semi-automatic firearm. A ban based on rate of fire is impossible, short of a blanket ban on semi-autos, which would ban most of the guns in this country. Ridiculous.

Okay then, a ban based on muzzle velocity? Nope - standard hunting rounds have a higher velocity than .223/5.56 or 7.62x39. A ban based on muzzle velocity is also a ban on all hunting rifles, and good luck with that.

Later in the article:



Really? These idiots really think that AR-15s aren't "guns in common use", and are "regularly used only in mass shootings"? There's a reason the AR-15 is called "America's rifle" - there are countless articles online about it being the most popular rifle in the country, owned and used by millions of law-abiding Americans for target shooting, hunting, competitions, home defense and more.

The NYP editorial board claims to speak from a place of reason and logic, but they clearly failed to do even cursory research to understand the truth on this one.

Ample room?


"Shall not be infringed"

 

[BlueHeeler]

Banning semi automatic rifles is the goal.

Absolutely.

We all know closing private sales will do nothing. We know banning magazines will do nothing. Banning "assault weapons" as written did nothing the first time and will do nothing.

However banning/confiscating semi auto will do something. I am not 100% sure what though.

 

[John from MD]

I'll go along with a ban on auto loaders when they ban all the cars with automatic transmission that kill thousands of people per year.

 

[Biggfoot44]

New York City is its own universe, and Unique political landscape .

By NYC standards the NY Post IS conservative . But then, by NYC standards, Michael Bloomberg IS Conservative .

 

[grimnar15]

Doctors kill more people per year worldwide than guns, just saying.

 

[j_h_smith]

Knives, spoons and forks kill more people than firearms. Diabetes and heat disease are responsible for more deaths than firearms of all types.

Blaming the gun for murder is like blaming the car for hit and run. I may have to put that back as my signature. It would seem to be more relevant today than ever before.

 

[Racer Doug14]

Ample room?


"Shall not be infringed"

Mic drop..



But, but, militias..and the state...

 

[jstolz]

I have a fear that semi autos will not be banned, but rather made NFA items. They will say “it’s the best of both words”. In reality it’s just additional time, hassle and money to get one.

 

[Doctor_M]

I have a fear that semi autos will not be banned, but rather made NFA items. They will say “it’s the best of both words”. In reality it’s just additional time, hassle and money to get one.

Good grief.... if I've got to pay for a $200 stamp for every semi auto I already own... well, let's just say it won't be a happy day at the Dr.M. house.

 

[BlueHeeler]

I have a fear that semi autos will not be banned, but rather made NFA items. They will say “it’s the best of both words”. In reality it’s just additional time, hassle and money to get one.

Ouch that would be something.

And add in the no import or manufacture clause like they did with full auto.

 

[Occam]

OK, fine. NFA them. But make the NFA process cost the buyer $1, and require the ATF to issue the tax stamp on demand, following the very same instant background check that the grabbers are insisting would work just fine for face to face sales at gun shows. Oh, and by the way that would apply to suppressors and other listed items, making them cash and carry for $1. OK, I'd go to $2.

 

[ed bernay]

What Trump and Conservative pundits need to do is publicly ask the Democrat politicians is if they want to ban “assault weapons”, do they propose the ban for the tens of millions of weapons already owned by law abiding citizens. If no, then what would the ban accomplish in their mind? If yes, what if the law abiding citizens don’t want to turn them in or sell them via a mandatory buyback? Are you going to charge them with a crime? Or you going to go door to door and confiscate them? What are you going to do if the law abiding people resist? Are you going to have the police kill them? Let these Democrats publicly state this and then put them in the campaign commercials for the Presidential election.

 

[teratos]

Doctors kill more people per year worldwide than guns, just saying.

I'm a doctor with guns. I'm your worst nightmare....

 

[BeoBill]

Here's a clue: New York Post. If you want to see what the Libs/Progs/commies are feeling, read the NY Daily news.

 

[erwos]

The NY Post is full of gun grabbers. Not surprising that they're advocating for it.

I have a fear that semi autos will not be banned, but rather made NFA items. They will say “it’s the best of both words”. In reality it’s just additional time, hassle and money to get one.

If the gun control movement had a clue, they would absolutely try to do this, and I rather suspect it could pass in the current political climate ("it's just a tax and a background check, why are you so upset?"). Fortunately (unfortunately?), they're not quite sophisticated enough to pursue this as a strategy yet because they're too fixated on the UK and Australia rather than continental Europe. A "register or buyback" scheme would definitely net tons of guns, even if registration was free. Doubly so in states like MD that have some records of what you bought.