The recent repeal of the assault weapon is the one of the most illogical, unreasonable and undemocratic actions undertaken by our federal government,
On Sept. 13, 1994, President Bill Clinton passed what became to be commonly known as the Assault Weapons Ban.
Under the ban, military style automatic weapons could no longer be imported or sold on the streets of our nation.
Yet, just a few weeks ago, on Sept. 13 (the 10-year mark for the law) a Republican controlled Congress let the ban expire without renewal.
This ban, however, was far more important than mere partisanship. The end of it is something that will affect us all immediately and significantly.
A year ago, if you wanted to buy an automatic assault rifle (for whatever reason), you would have to go through a considerable deal of trouble to obtain one (perhaps even by illegal means). While it's true that the assault weapon ban wasn't fully effective, for all intents and purposes, it would be extremely hard and almost virtually impossible for one to obtain a weapon.
Now however, the law has changed all that.
Anyone who now wants to, can obtain military style automatic assault rifles both legally and confidentially.
But this is where the problem lies. Why would anyone want automatic AK47s and Uzis to freely roam our streets and our communities? More importantly, who would need such weapons outside of a battlefield?
Do we want criminals or the mentally unstable to walk around with the powerful yet amazingly easy ability to take lives?
With the ever increasing problem of gun crimes in our nation, the lack of an assault weapons ban makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
The only reasons for removing the ban that the NRA and some Republicans have sheepishly managed to bring up is the inefficiency of the ban (especially argued by politicians) as well as the freedom of constitutional right to bear arms.
First of all, the argument to remove the ban based on its efficiency (brought forward by several Republicans) is completely illogical. While it's true that the assault weapons ban wasn't 100% efficient (there were a few minor loopholes in the law), it was effective in most cases.
Republicans, however, have argued that the ban was loosely written - they felt it would be best to end the mess completely. But if they really felt it was so inefficient, why didn't they choose to fix it and strengthen it rather than abandon it altogether?
Secondly, many argued that the assault weapons ban hindered an American citizen's free right to bear arms.
The NRA, especially behind this train of thought, felt that it was not up to the government to narrowly define what can considered be an "arm."
Yet, we as a society must ask ourselves how much latitude we can afford to someone who wants to bear arms. If we extend the NRA's argument, would we be willing to let individuals in our society freely own any weapons such as bombs, rocket-propelled grenades, grenade launchers, and chemical weapons? Couldn't all these weapons be considered arms? If we completely free the right to interpret what "arms" are, we would be turning our nation into a war zone.
Despite what some argue, we as a society do have a right to mutually decide what kinds of weapons we allow among ourselves.
This democratic right of the people, however, did not deter Congress from ending the ban.
A poll conducted by the National Annenberg Election (along with a Gallup poll) found that 64-68 percent of people in the United States were against ending the assault weapons ban (including those who supported Republicans).
This dichotomy between congress and the will of the people proves most of all that the end of the assault weapons ban was not a democratic decision.
Unless we as a society counteract the powerful and dangerous lobbying influence of organizations like the NRA, we will find ourselves less powered and in a nation where the comfortable vision of safety will quickly disappear.
http://www.dailytrojan.com
On Sept. 13, 1994, President Bill Clinton passed what became to be commonly known as the Assault Weapons Ban.
Under the ban, military style automatic weapons could no longer be imported or sold on the streets of our nation.
Yet, just a few weeks ago, on Sept. 13 (the 10-year mark for the law) a Republican controlled Congress let the ban expire without renewal.
This ban, however, was far more important than mere partisanship. The end of it is something that will affect us all immediately and significantly.
A year ago, if you wanted to buy an automatic assault rifle (for whatever reason), you would have to go through a considerable deal of trouble to obtain one (perhaps even by illegal means). While it's true that the assault weapon ban wasn't fully effective, for all intents and purposes, it would be extremely hard and almost virtually impossible for one to obtain a weapon.
Now however, the law has changed all that.
Anyone who now wants to, can obtain military style automatic assault rifles both legally and confidentially.
But this is where the problem lies. Why would anyone want automatic AK47s and Uzis to freely roam our streets and our communities? More importantly, who would need such weapons outside of a battlefield?
Do we want criminals or the mentally unstable to walk around with the powerful yet amazingly easy ability to take lives?
With the ever increasing problem of gun crimes in our nation, the lack of an assault weapons ban makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
The only reasons for removing the ban that the NRA and some Republicans have sheepishly managed to bring up is the inefficiency of the ban (especially argued by politicians) as well as the freedom of constitutional right to bear arms.
First of all, the argument to remove the ban based on its efficiency (brought forward by several Republicans) is completely illogical. While it's true that the assault weapons ban wasn't 100% efficient (there were a few minor loopholes in the law), it was effective in most cases.
Republicans, however, have argued that the ban was loosely written - they felt it would be best to end the mess completely. But if they really felt it was so inefficient, why didn't they choose to fix it and strengthen it rather than abandon it altogether?
Secondly, many argued that the assault weapons ban hindered an American citizen's free right to bear arms.
The NRA, especially behind this train of thought, felt that it was not up to the government to narrowly define what can considered be an "arm."
Yet, we as a society must ask ourselves how much latitude we can afford to someone who wants to bear arms. If we extend the NRA's argument, would we be willing to let individuals in our society freely own any weapons such as bombs, rocket-propelled grenades, grenade launchers, and chemical weapons? Couldn't all these weapons be considered arms? If we completely free the right to interpret what "arms" are, we would be turning our nation into a war zone.
Despite what some argue, we as a society do have a right to mutually decide what kinds of weapons we allow among ourselves.
This democratic right of the people, however, did not deter Congress from ending the ban.
A poll conducted by the National Annenberg Election (along with a Gallup poll) found that 64-68 percent of people in the United States were against ending the assault weapons ban (including those who supported Republicans).
This dichotomy between congress and the will of the people proves most of all that the end of the assault weapons ban was not a democratic decision.
Unless we as a society counteract the powerful and dangerous lobbying influence of organizations like the NRA, we will find ourselves less powered and in a nation where the comfortable vision of safety will quickly disappear.
http://www.dailytrojan.com
