Gun Feinstein dont work and make things worse in

Gun control is a very heated topic in American politics, and depending on your political party one can guess your standings. With the world of current politics, there has been a stalemate between the parties for over two decades, with the last major act passing in 1994. Which was the assault rifle ban. This act had banned the sale and production of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines that held over 10 rounds of ammunition from 1994 to 2004. According to Brad Plumer who writes for the Washington Post says that “Experts who have studied the law tend to agree that it was rife with loopholes and generally ineffective at curbing gun violence”. Even with this known fact some politicians like California Senator Dianne Feinstein has called for the reinstatement of an assault rifle ban after the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California. Gun bans and new gun legislation supported by politicians like Dianne Feinstein dont work and make things worse in California. With some politicians like Dianne Feinstein and former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton calling for an assault rifle ban would it work ? The 1994 assault rifle ban had many loopholes and was written by Dianne Feinstein, along with other politicians. Those loopholes had no effect on assault rifles and high capacity magazines already in circulation and only lasted ten years according to the Washington Post. In the same article, they also state, ” the gun manufacturers could often make minor tweaks to existing guns and they would be essentially just as powerful but perfectly legal.” With corners easily cut, the assault rifle ban didn’t restrict criminals from obtaining a firearm the same firearm that was previously illegal.A counter-argument that manly politicians use to combat gun violence is common sense gun control. This idea is backed by politicians like former president Barack Obama, former Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton, and California State Senator Dianne Feinstein. They all agree that common sense gun control would involve banning, as they describe, military style weapons, high capacity magazines, and in force universal background checks for all firearm purchases. These politicians believe that if these were instituted than countless mass shootings would have been prevented.Americans have never responded well to bans. For example, during the prohibition of the 1920’s, many criminals found ways to obtain alcohol illegally. An NPR article written by Daniel Okrent seen that “But Prohibition didn’t stop drinking; it simply pushed the consumption of booze underground”. Gun control could result in similar methods of obtaining firearms illegally. Alternatives to gun control legislation would be for a coalition of law enforcement and government officials to work together to take illegal firearms off of the streets. Passing legislation so obtaining warrants to inspect suspicious homes and gang-related buildings easier. David Rivkin the author of The Rush to a Bad Gun Control Law says how firearm dealers are coming under strict regulations to check a person’s background before selling them a firearm. Under current laws, firearm dealers must hold a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and are required to conduct instant background checks before selling a firearm to a buyer. Background checks are a good way to keep firearms out of the hands of a criminal’s and are already in place in 8 states. The idea of background checks are supported by firearm owners according to the Washington Post’s Michael S. Rosenwald.A Gun ban or prohibition is also borderline illegal, as it will restrict the 2nd Amendment and would also stop the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals who obtain firearms legally or illegally. The ability to bear arms is a given to citizens of the United States, and making gun control legislation will constrict our Constitutional right. Violent crime is high in cities that have strict gun control laws like Chicago, which has the strongest firearm laws in the country and also has the highest firearm deaths according to Janice Williams who writes for the Newsweek. She states that “However, the problem will not be solved by taking firearms away from people who are registered and licensed to carry them.” Which is a key argument for pro gun advocates, and with this idea politicians have tried to attack the ammunition aspected of firearms.On the past 2016 Californian ballot proposition 63 targets criminals and tries to prevent them from obtaining ammunition. Prop 63 is overwhelmingly opposed by the law enforcement throughout the state and civil rights groups due to its infringement on law-abiding citizens without keeping criminals from obtaining ammunition. In addition Prop. 63 would take away resources away from local law enforcement and overburden an already overcrowded court system with people with minor offenses. As a result, this will turn harmless, law-abiding citizens into criminals if they do not follow strict guidelines. In a NRA article stated that this method of gun control has already been tried in New York and the results where that  law enforcement recently abandoned its enforcement, because it was impossible to enforce  and effectively maintain. On November 8th 2016 Californian voters passed proposition 63. Law-abiding citizens are now required to go through a background check to buy ammunition legally, bans the importation of ammunition over state lines, and law-abiding citizens must report large amount of “privately owned” ammunition to the department of justice via the Legislative Analyst’s Office. With the newest attempt to stop criminals from obtaining ammunition has greatly restricted the rights of law-abiding citizen who must now abide by the new law and proposition 63 which starts on January 1 2018.California ammunition vendors must now report who you are, the amount of your punches, and where you are buying the ammunition from to the Department of Justice. This sounds good in the ears of Dianne Feinstein who wants to take away our rights and stop criminals but, once again, it has loopholes. Individuals that have a criminal background can’t purchase ammunition, but how does this stop criminals from buying it from private citizens who don’t have a criminal record and are affiliated with criminals. This is already happening today, but with firearms. Manny criminals would have someone else  purchase a firearm form them. This is very much illegal, but it still happens. The only defense against this are firearms dealers not selling to people if they think they think the firearm is intended for someone else, besides the one purchasing the firearm. Another way around prop 63 is that doesn’t affect non-California citizens. This allows non-california citizens to bring in ammunition from out of state and sell it privately. ( NRA Kimberly Rhode ) Proposition 63 will have little effect on the targeted criminals who want ammunition because if these loopholes. With any attempt made by politicians like Dianne Feinstein to fix them might result in the infringement of our second amendment right.One huge part of proposition 63 was that by July 1, 2017 all California residences had to turn over all firearm magazines that held over 10 rounds of ammunition. Any magazines that holds over 10 rounds of ammunition was banned in 2000. But under another loophole in the anti-firearm legislation written by Dianne Feinstein allowed any grandfathered in magazines that held over 10 rounds to be legal. In proposition 63 all grandfathered magazines that hold over 10 rounds must be turned over by July 1 2017 or face up to a year in prison. Many civil-rights groups challenged this in federal courts. One day before all grandfathered magazines had to be turned over Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California blocked the measure from going into effect and saying that “If this injunction does not issue, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one’s self of lawfully acquired property.” In response the Lieutenant Governor of California Gavin Newsom said ” It’s a tragic reality that as time passes, we are presented with more and more evidence on the devastating power of large-capacity magazines, which are consistently the accessory of choice in mass shootings for mass murderers. ”  The Lieutenant Governor is referring to the 10 mass shooting which took place since the time of Prop 63 was first being written. He believes if Prop 63 was in effect before the mass shootings it would have prevented them from obtaining their firearms. These 10 mass shooting included San Bernardino office party, Orlando Nightclub, and Washington D.C Navy Yard mass shootings. The San Bernardino and Orlando shootings were a result of Isis inspired terrorism. While the Washington D.C navy yard shooter Aaron Alexis suffered from multiple mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, but all three shooters had something in common. They went through background checks and passed, so they obtained their firearms legally want a problem. If Prop 63 was in effect this wouldn’t have stop them from committing their heinous acts, only delay them. With Prop 63 passed the mass shooter would still have been able to get their ammunition. The best Prop 63 could have done was to delay them. A major effect Prop 63 would have is infringing law-abiding citizens from exercising their constitutional right. Now politicians such as Gavin Newsom and Dianne Feinstein could only hope their acts against the second amendment would prevent criminals from obtaining ammunition. Another major problem with gun legislation is the complete lack of knowledge that politicians have of firearms and the gun industry. For example former President Obama during a private fundraiser in San Francisco in April of 2015 said “It is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsman, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon in that case, sadly, by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.” Which is false because fully automatic firearms were outlawed back in 1935 then again in 1986. Another example of a politician not knowing what he’s talking about is Michael Bloomberg who’s a leading advocate against the second amendment. In a 2012 Cynthia McFadden interviewed him and asked: “wouldn’t that band most pistols ?” With his response being  “No, but pistols are different you got to pull the trigger each time. An assault weapon is basically you hold it and it goes brrrrrt.” After his comment, Cynthia McFadden corrects him by saying “No, those are fully automatic weapons.” with his response being “hu, ok.” If our politicians can’t differentiate the characteristic between firearms than we can’t trust them to pass firearm legislation that accurately targets the right firearm or their accessories.Politicians aren’t the only ones who lack knowledge of firearms because this also affects the media as well. Following the church shooting in Texas popular new site, USA Today posted a short video explaining the firearm that the shooter used. In that video, USA Today showed what they said was  “possible modifications” of an AR-15 which included a chainsaw bayonet. This not only being extremely unpractical, but unheard of outside video games. Another big name news side using inaccurate examples is CNN. Following the Las Vegas shooting CNN tries to show how bump stocks work. In their demonstration, the firearm did not include a bump stock but CNN did include a silencer which are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act and a grenade launcher which civilians cannot purchase grenades due to them being destructive devices. Media sites such as these are where millions of American get there news and information from. If media sites continue to present misleading information how can we be certain they are reporting accurate information about a confusing subject like firearms. Our right to bear arms is a right given to Americans since 1789. The original intention of the second amendment was to fight against a tyrannical and restricting government not to hunt or defend ourselves from criminals. But times have changed and so have we. Sometimes it’s needed to give up some right to gain security. With all the information gathered I believe that it’s just not the time yet for major reasons like loopholes, ineffective bans, and the lack of knowledge that our politicians have.