Ban on AR-15 Rifles Would Not Have Prevented Dallas Police Ambush

From Breitbart's Big Government:

In the wake of Dallas Police ambush, left-wing voices renewed their calls for a ban on AR-15 rifles. However, a CBS News report shows that such a ban would have been impotent because the gunman used an SKS rifle rather than an AR-15.

The SKS is an antique rifle that was designed during WWII and used during the Vietnam War. It is a semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine. And while the fixed magazine can be removed and the rifle adapted to detachable magazines, the firearm was designed with a fixed magazine in place.

Whoops!!!

So here is another case when the assault weapons ban would not have have been effective in stopping a mass shooting.

But it's the first place Preisident 4Putt went.

The AR15 is Not an Assault Weapon

From The American Thinker Blog:

As one wag put it, a gun in the hand is betters than a cop on a phone and the response time for a bullet from an AR15 fired in self-defense is a lot quicker than calling 911. As Investors Business Daily editorialized: In 2014, as California Sen. Diane Feinstein was trying to revive the expired assault weapons ban, banning “scary” weapons like the AR15, based on its appearance is nonsense. Other non-scary weapons are just as lethal and the AR15 has been chosen by popular demanded as the defensive weapon of choice, despite a nonsensical ruling by one federal judge:

As the Ferguson riots raged, U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake, appointed by President Clinton, issued a ruling that upheld the Maryland law, saying, "the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes... and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual."

Now the Second Amendment, written in the era of muskets, does not mention what arms we have the right to keep and bear. But we have an idea, based on how they were used: to protect their owners' homes, businesses, farms and families, and to fight the tyranny of the British crown. It's been said that the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights to protect the other nine.

Gun control advocates say, with some snarkiness, that the Second Amendment doesn't allow one to own nuclear weapons or tanks, so it's merely a question of where we draw the line. They would draw the line at the AR-15 and its counterparts -- which, despite the judge's claim, are commonly used for legal, defensive purposes.

The AR-15 is among the guns that must be registered. They've made up 50%-60% of U.S. rifle sales in recent years, federal figures show. The New York Times recently called the AR-15 "The Most Wanted Gun In America." Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has been pushing a bill to reintroduce the ineffective assault weapons 1994 ban that expired in 2004 with no impact on the crime rate.

Feinstein's legislation would outlaw more than 150 types of weapons, from rifles to pistols to shotguns. They include the Streetsweeper and Striker-12, which, again, have frightening appearances yet chamber the same 12-gauge shells that are used to hunt birds.

While used in several high-profile mass shootings, the AR-15 is favored among homeowners, hunters and sport shooters. It's popular for both sport and self-defense among women, who find it easy to carry and handle.

Crime rates and homicides have dropped as concealed-carry laws spread nationwide. As more citizens are armed, predators find it harder to find unarmed victims except in gun-free zones such as the school in Newtown, Conn., or the theater in Aurora, Colo.

Critics of the Second Amendment say that they are not going after guns used for legitimate activities such as hunting. But when the Founders wrote the Second Amendment it was because the British were coming, not because it was the start of deer season.
..................

In the hands of British redcoats, the musket was an assault weapon. In the hands of a law-abiding American, an AR15 is what the Second Amendment is all about.

Yep!

Fourth Circuit Rules Against Maryland ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

From Breitbart's Big Government:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit sent Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban back to a lower court today for further review because it “significantly burdens the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home.”

FINALLY!!!

A good Pro 2nd Amendment ruling from a Circuit Court!

President Obama Just Offered Two Bad Ideas for Fighting Gun Violence

From Slate via H/t AT Instapundit: First, the LA Times reject's Obama's gun-ban plan, now it's Slate:

Although well-meaning—supporters genuinely want to keep military-style weapons “off the streets” and guns out of the hands of suspected threats—both measures are wrongheaded.

There’s no doubt assault weapons—there’s no official definition for the term, which makes identifying them for prohibition difficult, if not impossible—are scary to many Americans, especially with their presence in high-profile shootings like the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, or the theater killings in Aurora, Colorado. But out of 73 mass killers from 1982 to 2015, just 25 used rifles of any kind, including military-style weapons. Most used revolvers, shotguns, and semi-automatic handguns. Which gets to a related point: We might feel safer if we ban “assault weapons,” but we won’t be safer. Of the 43,000 Americans killed with guns since 2010, just a fraction—3.5 percent—were killed with rifles.

The vast majority of gun murder victims are killed with handguns. But a handgun ban isn’t on the table, and for good reason—with its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court stated an individual right to gun ownership. And under Heller, handguns are weapons in “common use” for “traditionally lawful purposes” like defending a home. A ban would be unconstitutional.

Obama Wants to Ban 'Assault Weapons' but Does Not Know What They Are

From Reason via H/T at Instapundit:

See also: Health Care 'Reform.'

What exactly are these evil guns that are good for nothing but indiscriminate slaughter? Judging from their own words, Obama, the New York Times editorial board, Collins, and Clinton—like most people who support bans on so-called assault weapons—do not know what "assault weapons" are.
.................................

In a 2014 essay titled "The Assault Weapon Myth," ProPublica reporter Lois Becket noted that these demonized guns are a "politically defined category" based on scary looks rather than criminal significance. "The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference," she wrote. "It turns out that big, scary military rifles don't kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do." Apparently the editors of the Times missed that essay, even though they published it. I guess they also missed the paper's own coverage of this issue, which has intermittently explained how arbitrary the definition of "assault weapon" is and noted that AR-15-style rifles like those used by the San Bernardino murderers are among the most popular guns in the United States.

At this point—27 years after the Violence Policy Center's Josh Sugarmann recommended targeting "assault weapons" based on their "menacing looks," taking advantage of "the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons"—there is no excuse for continuing to parrot myths about the special murder-facilitating features of these firearms. Either Obama, Clinton, Collins, and her colleagues at the Times do not know what they are talking about or they are deliberately misleading the public.

Actually, he really wants to ban ALL guns. It's the first incremental step. Like the ACA/Obamacare was to be the first step toward single payer.

Everything You Need to Know about ‘Assault’ Weapons in One Chart

From National Review:

Gun-control advocates are always talking about a ban on so-called “assault” weapons – but doing so would have no impact on gun violence.