A January 4 memo from the Obama administration has some pretty candid things to say about assault weapons, gun violence, and gun control.
The NRA made a video that sums up some of the stunning admissions (h/t gatewaypundit):
Here are some of the admissions from the internal memo:
- “Gun buybacks are ineffective as generally implemented.”
- “Assault weapons are not a major contributor to gun crime.”
- “a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.”
- “Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence.”
- “The 1997 Australian gun buyback was massive in scale…appears to have had no effect on gun homicide”
- “Smart gun technology” is “Unlikely to affect gun crime”
- “Universal checks are insufficient for ensuring that firearm owners remain eligible.”
- “An NIJ funded study of the Los Angeles illicit gun market noted: ‘Results showed that many crime guns were first purchased at local’—that is, in county—licensed dealers, rather than from out of state. That is, contrary to the conventional wisdom that crime guns were being trafficked across state borders from places with less stringent regulations, such as Arizona and Nevada, we found that a majority of the guns used in crimes were purchased in Los Angeles County.”
- “In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession. An exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact”
You would think that after basically admitting that their gun control policies don’t work in the real world, the National Institute for Justice might conclude that the Obama administration is barking up the wrong tree, but no.
The memo actually concludes that the assault weapons ban could be effective “if coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions.” There’s a simple word for what they’re talking about here: confiscation. A buyback with no exemptions? If the buyback is mandatory, whether or not the government gives you some cash for your gun is irrelevant.
How could Federal government legally mandate that you sell them your firearm? Simple. They apply the same legal precedent that Obamacare to force you to buy health insurance. If the government can force you to buy something that you don’t want, it follows that they can force you to sell something that you do want.
These ideas, of course, are diametrically opposed to the 2nd Amendment, and if they are implemented and stand, the entire Constitution is in jeopardy. After all, the 2nd Amendment is the one that allows you to defend the rest of it.