|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Kamala Harris Tries To Export California Gun Control To The Nation
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., is pushing to export California’s gun control to the rest of the nation. And she is doing it via her efforts to renew the failed federal “assault weapons” ban.
The ban, which was in place from 1994 to 2004, correlated with lower crime, yet even the The New York Times admitted that there is no evidence that the drop in crime was a result of the “assault weapons” ban (and in fact, crime continued to drop long after the ban was allowed to expire.) Rather, the Times suggested that the ban was an extension of “the assault weapon myth” propagated by Democrats in the 1990s; a time when they were desperate to reduce the “gun crime” that was raging out of control. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(8/18/2017)
|
" ... there is no evidence that the drop in crime was a result of the 'assault weapons' ban (and in fact, crime continued to drop long after the ban was allowed to expire.) ...."
And the drop in crime also BEGAN earlier than the assault weapon ban's enactment.
A contemporary FBI report stated that assault weapons were used in one half of one percent of gun crimes.
They were a NONFACTOR. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
