The New York Times > National > Many Say End of Firearm Ban Changed Little

That Times Story:

I've noticed that several bloggers have picked up on the story in the New York Times entitled "Many Say End of Firearm Ban Changed Little." Everyone seems to have noticed the opening:

Despite dire predictions that the streets would be awash in military-style guns, the expiration of the decade-long assault weapons ban last September has not set off a sustained surge in the weapons' sales, gun makers and sellers say. It also has not caused any noticeable increase in gun crime in the past seven months, according to several metropolitan police departments.

What many have not mentioned is that the rest of the story is a call, in spite of that evidence, for a much more comprehensive ban on firearms.

Indeed, a replica of the ban is again before the Senate.

"In my view, the assault weapons legislation was working," said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, a chief sponsor of the new bill.

But it did need some changes, she said:

Senator Feinstein said she wished she could outlaw the "flood of big clips" from abroad, calling that the "one big loophole" in the ban.

Well, that may be what she says now. At the time, however, what she considered the biggest loophole was that it allowed anyone to possess firearms at all:

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."

Everyone who has argued recently that "fifty-one percent is not a mandate," please take note. Here is a bill that would have, had it come into law, resulted in the seizure of billions of dollars worth of property, from fully one-third of American households, in spite of the vocal opposition of 49% of the Senate.

Senator Feinstein is, in other words, a radical. There is not a single less reasonable figure in government on the issue of gun rights. Yet, the Times quotes her without analysis or context -- and it does so repeatedly.

Gun-control advocates say military-style semiautomatics do not belong in civilian hands. "They are weapons of war," Senator Feinstein said, "and you don't need these assault weapons to hunt."

No one is allowed to rebut, of course, that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, and everything to do with providing the tools that citizens need to perform their duties to enforce the common peace. This is not even about "self defense," in that frequently-encountered formula. It is about their duty to uphold the common peace, whether they are defending themselves, or their neighbors, their communities, or their nation. It is about their right and duty to do exactly that, whether the breakers of the peace are violent felons, domestic terrorists, foreign terrorists, enemy armies, or -- should the occasion arise in some future time -- a domestic tyranny that sets aside the Constitution.

That last one is hard to give voice to, because it seems like a radical thought. It isn't radical at all. Jefferson held the view that human liberty might someday have to be protected even from fellow Americans, as did Lincoln (see his comments on the power of any European army to drink from the Ohio). It is the Times and their ilk who are radical, by banning from the conversation a perspective as old as the Republic, and one which has been held by most of her greatest citizens.

Yet even in the Times article, santized of principled advocacy for firearms ownership, there is almost a refutation of Senator Feinstein. It comes here:

Mr. Luth of DPMS, however, said that his sales had been increasing for years, to the law enforcement community, the civilian market and an unexpected new clientele. "We've picked up new customers with the troops returning from Iraq," he said, "who had never shot an AR-15 before and now want one."

Naturally, returning American soldiers might prefer the AR-15 to defend their homes, families and communities -- not for big game hunting, as it is a .22 rifle, but for these other things. It is precisely because it is similar to a military weapon -- the weapon with which they have trained, and which they have carried and lived with during their deployments. They understand its workings, are comfortable with it, and have practiced enough to be accurate.

It is exactly right and proper that they should have such things if they desire them. They are the militia -- as are we all, who take up that charge and stand on that wall. Our continued freedom as a nation is safer in their hands than in the hands of Senators like Ms. Feinstein. We should trust their judgment, not hers.