Opinion: Democrats Introduce Symbolic Gun Control Bill
Kevin Felts 01.14.19
Democrats won control of the House of Representatives during the midterm elections of 2018. After the newly elected representatives were sworn in, party leaders wasted no time introducing various bills, one of them being a gun control bill.
What does this mean? Nothing, it means nothing as the bill is mostly symbolic.
It is no secret Democrats from left leaning states want to ban certain types of firearms, such as the AR-15 and AK-47. The ban is an uphill battle as Democrats from working class families in rural areas may not support such the ban.
We can not group all Democrats together, just as we can not group all Republicans together. Some people run on certain tickets because the local population favors a certain party. Thus the names RINO and DINO. Which is an acronym for Republican In Name Only, and Democrat In Name Only.
Besides Democrats who represent rural areas and may not support a gun ban, Republicans still control the Senate.
From AmmoLand – Senate Democrats Introduce Assault Weapons Ban of 2019.
The ban would prohibit the sale, manufacture, transfer or importation of 205 rifle models by name. The Senators refer to these firearms as “military-style assault weapons.” The bill does have a grandfather clause. Current owners of these guns would be able to keep them.
According to Senator Feinstein’s twitter, this legislation considers any rifle that uses a detachable magazine and has a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock as an “assault weapon.”
Those of us old enough to remember the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 – 2004 know manufacturers were able to modify firearms to skirt the so called “ban”. In fact, I have a Bushmaster AR-15 that was made during the 1994 – 2004 ban.
What is the difference in a rifle made during and after the ban?
- Flash hider.
- Bayonet lug.
- Collapsible stock – The rifle came with a fixed stock.
Final Thoughts
Democrats are marching up a slippery slope as the civilian gun market of the United States keeps small arms companies afloat. The military, nor law enforcement agencies purchase enough firearms to keep gun companies in business.
If numerous gun companies went out of business, this would have a detrimental affect on the nations ability to produce enough small arms for wartime.
This topic has been touched on before, and readers posted comments along the lines of, “The government would not buy over the counter weapons for the military.”
During World War I and World War II numerous gun companies were contracted to build small arms for the military. The difference between then and the path Democrats want to put the nation on? Democrats would close gun factories and skilled craftsmen would leave the industry.
Were the United States to face another global conflict, there would be no factories to retool. This would put the nation at a disadvantage as compared to previous conflicts.
Even though Democrats talk about banning certain guns, doing so would have a profound negative affect on the nations ability to wage war. Thus the ban is mostly symbolic to appease left leaning Democrat voters.
