During the second Presidential debate of 2012, President Obama was answering a question about gun violence for one of the CNN townhall plants selected by Obama’s co-debater, Candy Crowley, who thinks the lowest gun crime rate in decades is an issue… or at least protects Obama from having to talk about his domestic policy failures, foreign policy failure, etc.
In any event, Obama buried his election when said this in his reply:
…we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement.
But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.
Pundits have been quick to nail Obama for his asinine desire to reinstate the failed Clinton-era ban on scary cosmetic features known as the “Assault Weapons” ban, which was completely ineffective in it’s stated goal (it had no measureable impact on crime) and backfired by creating a desire in the citizenry to own the legal versions of the banned firearms, making military-style AR-15 clones the most popular firearms in the United States. Today, every major manufacturer of firearms in the United States sells multiple models of AR-15 patterned rifles, in an expanding range of calibers. Thanks to the efforts of prohibitions, they have become “America’s gun.” Other semi-automatic military-style firearms are nearly ass possibly.
Instead of creating an effective prohibition, the “ban” completely normalized the firearms the radicals wanted to demonize.
The “high capacity” magazine ban, an arbitrary 10-cartridge limit on the number of bullets a firearm magazine could hold was part of the same bill.
It backfired even more spectacularly.
Limited to just ten rounds, handgun manufacturers then decided to see just how small they could make ten-round guns, creating an entirely new class of semi-automatic pistols called subcompacts. The popularity of these subcompact pistols led to the creation of new gun companies and helped create the conditions that saw the vast expansion of concealed carry laws across the United States, a effect still rippling across the nation today. Smaller, lighter, more reliable and more economical handguns are now driving the market.
As a result, I really want to know what Barack Obama means when he intones he wants to ban “cheap handguns.”
How does he define “cheap.”
Does he mean “low quality?” Considering the quality of the federal programs he would force us to adopt against our will, that can’t be the case.
Does he mean “low in cost?” That sounds far closer to being the probable meaning, and considering the specific brands of cheap handguns that were among those most commonly used, that would make a lot of sense… if all the “cheap gun” manufacturers listed hadn’t gone bankrupt long ago.
Does he mean “comparatively inexpensive?” This is the most insidious—and in my opinion most likely—meaning that Obama intended, as it is a moving variable, allowing him to disarm more and more law-abiding citizens by putting the price of self-protection out of reach for as many as he can.
By way of example, a Smith & Wesson is among the most respected of revolver makers in the world, and their reputation comes from the quality of their materials, quality of design, and quality of manufacture of their firearms. They tend to over-engineer their firearms, and you can typically rely upon them to fire thousands and thousands of rounds without a problem.
The simple fact of the matter, however, is that many people who buy firearms for self defense don’t have a lot of money to invest in such high-quality weapons. They won’t be firing thousands of rounds. The can’t afford it.
What they want is a simple-to-use firearm to use almost exclusvely in self defense.
Companies like Armscor, among others, make decent-quality handguns for this economically-constrained market. Should Obama be able to deny people the protection their products offer, simply because they don’t cost as much, and aren’t as finely fitted and polished?
This is self-defense discrimination against the poor.
I want to know why Barack Obama wants poor people to be victims of violent crimes.