Weapons ban not likely to gain traction
Published: Monday, January 28, 2013
Updated: Monday, January 28, 2013 17:01
“The government is going to take our guns, Jason!” a friend said to me in a panic after receiving a report on an assault weapons ban.
Recently, The Jonesboro Sun reported that customers have been flooding gun shops, for fear of not being able to buy an AR-15 after the impeding government ban.
There’s an atmosphere of paranoia among most conservatives.
While there should be stricter gun control laws, such as requiring a background check to buy a gun at a gun show, a full ban on assault weapons by the government would be ineffective referring specifically to the practical utility of semiautomatic weapons.
Retired law enforcement officer Robert Campbell explains in his book Personal Protection and Home Defense that an AR-15 rifle is a civilian weapon on the grounds that it is a semiautomatic weapon, a weapon that can fire only one round per pull of a trigger.
Furthermore, he clearly distinguishes this as a home defense weapon while stressing that an assault weapon is one that can spray multiple rounds by holding the trigger.
He gives the example of an AK-47, a gun that is for the most part already banned among citizens.
And that is the core of my next argument --- assault weapons already are banned among civilians.
How can the government be proposing a ban on assault weapons when they are already banned?
Consider a limit on the capacity of magazines. There is little time difference in firing a 12-round clip, to dropping and reloading two six-round clips.
As far as licensing requirements, there already are licensing requirements in most states for the carrying of a handgun.
For instance, I hold an Arkansas conceal carry license which carries over to 32 other states.
So it is not like the government is acting out of the ordinary.
In a country that has 314 million people, there are 310 million guns.
The government cannot feasibly ban guns as too many U.S. citizens own firearms.