Used that phrase b/c it's IMO a bit trite and definitely a "sound bite" thing, and like every sound bite only partially accurate, but bringing our discussion over here from the Fast and Furious thread, here's part of the 2012 Democratic Platform:
. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.
So it states right in the platform they want to ban certain classes of weapons altogether, ban magazines with more than 10 round capacity, and the "gun show loophole" is nothing more than allowing individuals to sell guns to each other in a designated location. There's no "loophole" per se.
That's just what's in the written platform, a series of laws that will in fact take guns off the market.
FWIW, this is a change from the 2008 platform on guns where they said:
We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.
You know why? B/c it isn't working in Chicago. Murder is up 30% over last year, and it is the gun violence and murder capital of the country despite having by far the most restrictive gun laws. The mayor is Obama's former Chief of Staff and they have fought the SCOTUS decision that they have to allow gun ownership tooth and toenail. There are numerous lawsuits pending trying to break down all the regs they've put in place to stop ownership.
So this is Obama's Chief of Staff supporting to the bitter end a complete ban on handgun ownership, and many rifles and shotguns, in a city that now has so many murders it has a shot at having a higher murder rate than Bogata Columbia.
So yeah it may be trite, and a sound bite, but the Democratic platform makes it clear it's not necessarily untrue.
Oh, fwiw, "assault weapons" are responsible for about 1% of gun violence in the US. It's hard to believe they want to ban these guns to reduce gun crime since these guns aren't used to commit gun crime. In Chicago for example, 4 times more people are being killed by bare hands than ALL rifles which includes "assault weapons".
Also, gun violence wasn't impacted by the last ban, and gun violence is falling steadily since the ban was lifted in 2004, except in areas that have enacted these laws on the state level. Again, what's the motive here when it's empirically proven the law didn't work last time?
So they want to enact a law we know doesn't work, and doesn't address the weapons used in 99% of gun related crimes, at a time when there is a strong correlation between gun ownership and falling gun violence rates nationally.
At some point why can't people say they're wrong and change their view? I did it on drugs, where I argued for years against legalization. Why can't Obama and Feinstein do it on guns, when his home city that has followed all of his views on gun laws is turning into a third world city?
Bookmarks