Assault Weapons Ban

[Potus]

The Assault Weapons Ban does very little to protect people's lives.

Let's say Dave buys an AR-15 for $500. He spends, let's say, $500 a month on groceries. He doesn't register this AR-15, which I understand is illegal but there are tons of unregistered firearms that aren't harming people. Or maybe he does register it and the AWB doesn't include a mandatory buyback program, so he can keep it but not sell it to a gun dealer.

The AWB passes, banning the sale of that AR-15. Because this restricts the supply so much, prices for an AR-15 go through the roof. Dave's $500 AR-15 is now worth $2,000.

Dave just lost his job! He doesn't have enough in savings to do everything, so he needs help with groceries. He goes to his local drug cartel connection, because everyone in my town at least has a general idea of who has connections to the big guys, and he sells his AR-15. That pays for 4 months of groceries!

Dave wasn't hurting anyone. His AR-15 was in his gun locker in case someone broke into his house. Or maybe he went target shooting every once in a while. But the gun was harmless. The AWB fails for the same reason most prohibitions fail. They centralize the guns with the bad guys.

There are 80 guns in this country for every 100 people. Gun culture is deep and ingrained. It's absurd and impractical to try to just outright ban portions of it. It's bad, unenforceable policy.

Look at where we've applied some very strict gun control policies in this country. It's a tough sell to say Chicago is some sort of peaceful, safe streets utopia. They've had heavy regulations on assault weapons and on handguns. Chicago, though, experiences plenty of gun violence.

Gun control doesn't work. It's dangerous.




Also, I've always read the "well regulated militia" clause as a sort of reasoning, not a contingency. "Because this is important, you have an inalienable right to bear arms." It's the logical backing rather than a contingency.