Holder says that putting the ban back into place would help stem the flow of US weapons into Mexico where violence between the government and the drug cartels is escalating daily.
So, our esteamed attorney gnereal wants to help our neighbors to the south stop violence by denying American citizens their rights to own guns. First off, why is this our problem? The same Mexican governemnt that refuses to try and stem the illegal invasion of American by it's citizens now wants us to stop exporting guns to their country. Well tough! We have an extensive network of border defenses designed to stop illegal aliens from invading our country, why doesn't Mexico do the same thing on their side of the border to stop the gun runners? Oh wait, we really don't have such a system and I guess neither do they. But that does not change the arguement. If you want something to stop coming into your country then stop it at your border. It is not our problem!
Secondly the on Feb. 20, 2009 the State Department issued a travel warning:
"Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," the warning said. "Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez."
Ok, two bonus points for anyone who can spot the big problem with this statement.
"cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades" I have news for the attorney general since he is apparently incapable of understanding US law. The average citizen cannot walk into a gun store in the country and buy "automatic weapons and grenades."
Banning US citizens from buying assault weapons will NOT in any way curb the use of automatic weapons and handgrenades in Mexico. So lets forget all about poor Eric's arguement that we have to do it for the Mexicans. Since we know its really not about helping Mexico. Instead lets focus on what he wants to ban.
Assault weapons and high capacity magazines. These are evil devices forged in the depths of hell that just cannot be allowed in the hands of bitter, religious rednecks here in the United States. Do you know what an assault rifle is? An assault rifle is an automatic rifle that is usually issued to the military for the performance of their duties. If you went out right now and tried to buy an assault rifle in the United States you would not be able to do so. Do you know why not? BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL!!!!!!
Oh, by he way - hand grenades? Same problem, they are already illegial to own in the US. You cannot buy them here.
What obama and holder really want to ban is semi-automatic weapons. So what is a semi-automatic rifle? According to Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Association:
"A semi-automatic is a quintessential self-defense firearm owned by American citizens in this country,"
So why if obama and holder really want to ban semi-automatic weapons why do they call them assault weapons? Because they are lying to you. Both these men are theoritically smart enough to know that a semi-automatic weapon is not an assault weapon. But a large portion of the voting public isn't informed enough to know the difference. Besides a lot of today's semi-automatic rifles look like assault weapons because they have a military syle stock that is made out of evil black plastic.
Califonia has already done this. See California has already outlawed many of obama's and holder's "assault weapons"
12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
Our wonderful chicken-hearted politicians here in California have defined an assault weapon for you. The problem here is items A, B, C, D, E and F are just cosmetic features that do not increase or decrease the lethality of a semi-automatic rifle. They just make it look really really scary. Because everyone knows that a semi-automatic hunting rifle is a lot safer than a semi-automatic hunting rifle with pistol grip on it. Cause you know, once you put a pistol grip on a semi-automatic rifle they lose all control. When the owner isn't looking they have even been known to sneak across the border to Mexico and shoot at drug runners.
But enough sarcasm. obama and holder want to ban scary looking rifles and magazines that will hold more than 10 rounds.
Now I don't want to give them any more ammunition to work with here, especially since they want to do the same to us. But, do you know what the difference is between me shooting a semi-automatic pistol with a magazine that holds 17 rounds and a 10 round magazine and a spare is? About 2 seconds. That is how long it takes me to drop a mag, slap in a new one chamber a round and start firing again. 2 seconds. And I am slow, I don't practice that enough. I'm sure there are guys out there that can do that in half the time I can.
Limiting the size of the magazine a weapon can hold doesn't make the weapon any safer to let it run around loose in public. Again like any tool a cap mag or a 10 rnd mag is only as safe as the user makes it.
So here comes your hope and change folks - Clinton Mk II. Ban guns and mags that will not make America safer and will not make Mexico safer. Because the other lie of ommision they don't tell you is this: Banning guns and gun control is not about the guns. It is not about the ammo or the mags. It is all about control. If they can control your life, they control you. More importantly if they can weasal away a little more Constitutionally protected rights it will make it easier for them to take away even more of them later. What is next? free speech, freedom of religion, etc? And lastly in extreme thinking cases only, it is much easier to supress an unarmed population than it is an armed one.