Loading

Original Opinion

Congress Lacks the Balls to Pass an Assault Weapons Ban

By · February 05,2013
Print Friendly
| 246 Views | Politics

nra_killing_kids_280

nra_killing_kidsWith each new report of a brutal firearm attack, our minds can’t help but to nearly forget the previous attack. We can only absorb so many events before they begin to blur together. One after another the body count increases, the weapon names are familiar, the tragedies both stir and anesthetize our emotions, and Congress continuously fails to act.

This past weekend in Boynton Beach, Florida, north of Fort Lauderdale, Isidro Zavala entered the home of his ex-wife, Victoria, and forced her to watch as he strangled to death one of their sons, 12-year-old Eduardo. Then Zavala brandished his TEC-9 semi-automatic handgun and fatally shot the other child, 11-year-old Mario. After killing both boys, Zavala spared the life of his ex-wife and, instead, blew his own brains out with a .38-caliber pistol.

The Boynton Beach Police Chief G. Matthew Immler told the press, “She tried fighting him off and begged him to kill her and not the children. He told her she was going to stay alive and suffer the loss of them.”

It’s not surprising to learn that the weapon of choice, the TEC-9, was one of the assault weapons that had been banned in the 1994-2004 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, also known as the assault weapons ban. Puppeteered by the National Rifle Association, the Republican Congress, along with the George W. Bush administration and too many Democrats, allowed the ban to expire in 2004. It’s also worth noting that the TEC-9 is one of the dozens of weapons listed in Senator Diane Feinstein’s newly proposed assault weapons ban.

Would those boys in Florida still be alive if the ban had been renewed? Who knows, but maybe.

Eight-plus years and countless thousands of assault weapon deaths later, Congress has obviously failed to pass a new ban on the deadliest firearms available and, in fact, can’t even muster the political balls to pass even the most innocuous gun control laws.

And it doesn’t appear likely that Congress will pass another assault weapons ban this year — or any time soon.

Reports are coming in from all around that President Obama is softening his language on passing a new assault weapons bill, chiefly because it doesn’t appear to have enough votes to break an inevitable and unified Republican filibuster. And even if it did, there’s no chance of passing the law through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

Kicking off his nationwide campaign to pass new gun control legislation, the president’s first stop was Minneapolis, not-coincidentally the site of one of the recent gun massacres that the rest of us have forgotten. Back in September, just several months ago, 36-year-old John Andrew Engeldinger entered his former workplace and opened fire, killing five people before taking his own life. Another victim died the following day bringing the body count to seven, including Engeldinger.

Within miles of where the shooting took place, President Obama made a big push for universal background checks, which happen to be supported by a supermajority of Americans as well as by many gun owners. But when it came to discussing an assault weapons ban, he merely called for “a vote” on the legislation, signalling that it’s unlikely to pass — but, as the strategy goes, we might as well get the NRA’s congressional drones on record as having voting against it.

At this stage, Harry Reid, who has traditionally opposed gun control legislation, has evidently promised a vote on the assault weapons ban, which is to say he’ll call for a vote to either add it as an amendment to a broader package if it doesn’t exist, or, if it exists, he’ll call for a vote on an amendment to strip it out of the legislation. Either way, there’s no real chance of it circumventing the filibuster, and, as I wrote, no chance of it making it through the House. In fact, it’s iffy whether the Judiciary Committee will actually deliver a single piece of gun control legislation at all.

It hasn’t helped that some gun control groups have softened on the assault weapons ban. John Kessler of Americans for Gun Safety told The Huffington Post‘s Sam Stein, “When the assault weapons ban comes to the floor, proponents including us will have to contend with the fact that very few assault weapons are actually used in a crime.” Kessler continued, “That’s the challenge with passing this law. On the one hand, it seems that in a civil society we should draw a line on what kind of weapon a person can own. And weapons designed for warfare belong on the other side of that line. On the other hand, if you are going to die at the hands of a criminal with a gun, it’s going to be a handgun.”

He’s clearly conflating military-style assault rifles with assault weapons, which include semi-automatic handguns like the TEC-9. To repeat, the Feinstein legislation includes certain types of handguns, several types of shotguns and the terrifying assault rifles like the Bushmaster AR-15 used at Sandy Hook. Once again, following a deadly gun massacre in 1996, Australia banned assault weapons and engaged in a serious buyback program and as a result “homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006.”

Nevertheless, it appears as if we won’t see any new bans this year. This naturally begs the question: what kind of extreme beyond-Newtown nightmare will it take to grab these cowards in Congress by the scruff and command them to ignore the NRA’s blood money and pass some serious legislation? It’s difficult to know what it’ll take, but if it’s not Sandy Hook and the deaths of 20 children, along with what’s becoming a regular headline in the news, I have no blessed idea.

Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Wibbles

    But… even when you look at the guns that would be banned by another AWB assault weapons really AREN’T used in many crimes.

    And a TEC-9 is just a handgun. There really is nothing special about it except that it’s larger because the magazine isn’t in the grip.

  • UnitedWeStand

    “Countless thousands” of deaths due to “assault” rifles?
    “Ignore the NRA’s blood money”?
    Clearly the author doesn’t understand FACTS…such as a weapons ban will have no effect on lessening gun violence, nor the FACT “assault” rifles are used in less than 3 % of all gun homicides. The government should not have any say in the weapons I choose to protect myself and my family. Apparently, the definition of “Shall NOT Be Infringed” has different definitions between liberal “gun-grabbers” and true Patriots.

    -Sincerely, A proud NRA supporter

    • Christopher Foxx

      The government should not have any say in the weapons I choose to protect myself and my family.

      Does that include nuclear weapons? Yes, I’m going waaaaaay to the far end of the weapon spectrum to make a pont, but I do seriously ask if there is any limit to your absolute statement that the gov’t “should not have any say in the weapons” you can own. Should individuals be allowed to own RPG-7s, M242 Bushmasters, F-22 Raptors and seed their front yards with M16 mines? Would you draw any line?

      Apparently, the definition of “Shall NOT Be Infringed” has different definitions between liberal “gun-grabbers” and true Patriots.

      And obviously those who think themselves “patriots” continue to willfully ignore the first part of the 2nd amendment and remain ignorant of what it was actually intended for.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1655290390 Steven Skelton

        I appreciate where you are coming from. It would be nice if more people understood that we are talking about where to draw the line, not whether or not it can be drawn at all.

        • Christopher Foxx

          This is where I find frustration in dealing with “proud NRA supporters” and self-proclaimed “true” patriots. They make a statement you try to reasonably engage them on those terms (“OK, if that’s the way you’d have it, how do you handle this real world consequence?”), and I’ve yet to then have them actually participate in that discussion.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1655290390 Steven Skelton

    “Would those boys in Florida still be alive if the ban had been renewed? Who knows, but maybe.”

    It doesn’t take an assault weapon to kill an unarmed child. Any gun would do.

    • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

      You could make the same argument for hunting. No one needs a TEC-9 to kill a turkey. Any gun will do. There’s no point in allowing the public to own assault weapons. They’re designed to HUNT PEOPLE.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1655290390 Steven Skelton

        Appropriate weaponry for hunting is a red herring. The point I am challenging is that an assault weapon ban might have saved the lives of the boys. It wouldn’t have. No chance.

        Bob, I understand your desire to change our circumstances so these things wont happen. Nobody likes mass killing. Not even the NRA.

        Banning “assault” weapons in the wake of these shootings is like invading the wrong country over 9-11.

        • Christopher Foxx

          Nobody likes mass killing. Not even the NRA.

          I’m not sure they’re completely opposed. Not saying they’re in favor of them, but the NRA certainly takes advantage of them when they happen.

      • joseph2004

        But you’re presuming that hunting people is why people who own them have them. That’s the approach that leads print vigilantes to publish the names and addresses of law-abiding harmless people. You’ve in the past used as part of your argument the comic/tragic case of Dick Chenney accidentally shooting his hunting friend, which suggests you aren’t about just assault weapons; you’re about banning any kind of gun.
        You make a bigger splash screaming at the top of your lungs about “assault weapons” in light of SandyHook, but ignore the broader, bigger problem of deaths by hand guns. That’s where the majority of gun deaths occur.
        And that’s why in the end, whatever congress does (even with more strict background checks – which I support) will be nothing but political fluff. Are they going to ban hand guns?
        It’s not hard to see that much of your motivation in this and other things is based on pure partisan politics. So if Obama “promotes” new gun control legislation that really does very little, well, at least it looks good.

        • Christopher Foxx

          A ban isn’t really necessary. Real background checks required for every sale. Closing the loophole. Empowering the ATF. Requiring gun dealers to maintain and report discrepancies in inventories. Licensing gun owners and holding them accountable.

          Let folks have any gun they want. But they have to pass a background check, pass a test to show they know how to own and operate the gun safely and will be held directly responsible for any use made of the gun.

  • http://www.facebook.com/darryl.frye.9 Darryl Frye

    Theres probably no way to prevent something like the Florida incident without a total ban. But what I hear almost no one talking about is the fact that in a great number of these shooting incidents, its not the actual gun owner committing them, but their teen or young son or relative who has got their hands on the gun, I think if they were to make a law requiring all Responsible gun owners to lock their guns up in a gun safe or something similar would go a great way to preventing these tragedy”s. charge the gun owners with accessory to the crime, with serious jail time if your gun is involved in a murder or serious injury. along with universal background checks, closing the gun show loophole, and ban purchasing firearms over the internet..

  • Nick2000

    The event in Florida is not a very good example as the guns did not really facilitate much. You could say that it is easier to press a trigger but that’s about it. You risk diluting the message by putting everything in the same basket unless you actually want a complete ban on any kind of weapon. This whole debate about “assault rifles” is not helping either because you end up splitting hair on what is legitimate for private parties to own. Draw the line at anything used by the military? That would leave out revolvers, black powder weapons and side by side barrelled hunting rifles. Maybe that would work.

    • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

      The TEC-9 is in the assault weapons ban legislation. The TEC-9 was used in the Florida shooting. It’s relevant.

      • Nick2000

        A Glock or a black powder revolver would have worked just as well. A Tec-9 is just a 9mm pistol that looks like a submachine gun and can have a high capacity magazine. I don’t see that this type of gun needs to exist per se but that was not a critical factor in the murder since the look did not make a difference and the amount of bullets did not make a difference. The type of weapon did make a difference in the school shooting but not here.

        • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

          The point is that there are assault weapon murders every day (as in Boynton Beach, etc, etc, etc) and mass shootings are becoming commonplace (Aurora, Minneapolis, Sandy Hook, etc, etc, etc) — yet Congress continuously acquiesces to the NRA and does nothing. Jesus.

          • Nick2000

            I think that the high capacity magazines are more of a problem than the rest. I tend to agree with Joe Biden on this. It is difficult to commit mass murder with tiny magazines. As such, I am for restricting magazine size and I would even go down to revolver size (6 rounds).

            The fact that you decide to call some gun “assault” weapon has no bearing on things. (I somebody assaults you with a baseball bat, it becomes an assault base-ball bat? nonsense).

            I see many people brandishing the term assault stupidly from gun fetishist who think it makes them more powerful to anti-gun advocate who think to paint them as more threatening. The first assault rifle (SturmGewehr) was named this way during WWII to describe an automatic capable light file. Everything else is stupid gimmicks from both sides. Let’s forget the name and concentrate on the use.

  • http://twitter.com/SugaRazor Razor

    I’m 100% with you, Bob… but I don’t see how the assault weapon ban would’ve stopped the Zavala murders. An outright gun ban? Maybe, but that’s pure fantasy in this country. Considering that he strangled one child to death, I don’t see how the assault ban would’ve stopped it though.

    • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

      It’s not just about the Zavala murders!! It was one timely example of someone who shouldn’t have owned an assault weapon using an assault weapon. There are countless other examples, and therefore they should be banned. Sheesh.

      • http://twitter.com/SugaRazor Razor

        That’s fine, and I agree, but I don’t think it was a fair case to bring into this particular debate. I’m only being hard on you here because you’re the gold standard.

Most Read Articles Today:

Copyright © 2013 BanterMediaGroup, L.L.C. All rights reserved.