The Obama administration is moving into high gear in putting gun-control advocates into important government positions. The administration’s nominee to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), Andrew Traver, should be of particular concern. His attacks on the civilian use of so-called assault weapons raise real questions about his willingness to distort the truth for political purposes. The person nominated to be the nation’s top gun cop shouldn’t use inaccurate descriptions to scare people into supporting gun control.
Mr. Traver is the special agent in charge of the BATFE’s Chicago field division. Therefore, he knows what was covered by the federal assault-weapons ban that sunset in 2004. But in November 2009, NBC interviewed Traver and reported: “Traver says the power and randomness of the heavy caliber, military-style weapons make them so dangerous not only to people, but to police. They’re so powerful, body armor can’t withstand a hit, and they’re so difficult to control, their bullets often get sprayed beyond the intended targets, striking innocent victims even when they’re in their own homes.”
Advertisement
The list of problems with Mr. Traver’s claims is very long. If he really believes that these weapons fire unacceptably “heavy caliber” bullets, he is going to have to ban virtually all rifles. Small-game rifles — guns designed to kill squirrels and rabbits without destroying too much meat — typically fire .22-caliber bullets, which are only slightly smaller than the .223-caliber bullets fired by the M16 (used by the U.S. military since Vietnam) and the newer M4 carbine (used in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars). Deer-hunting rifles fire rounds that are very similar to those used by the AK-47.
Speaking of M16s, M4s, and AK-47s, Traver is correct when he states that the guns covered by the federal assault-weapons ban were “military-style weapons.” But he fails to note that this really just deals with style — the cosmetics of the guns, not how they actually operate. The guns covered by the ban were not the machine guns actually used by the military, but civilian, semi-automatic versions of those guns. The civilian version of the AK-47 may look like the guns used by militaries around the world, but it is different. It fires essentially the same bullets as deer-hunting rifles at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage.
On penetrating body armor, Mr. Traver leaves out one important detail: Rifles in general are often able to penetrate body armor simply because their bullets travel faster than those fired from handguns. The same can be said for going through the walls of houses. But if he had said that deer-hunting rifles can often penetrate walls and lower-level types of body armor, it is unlikely that his comments would have generated the same fear.
Unfortunately, Mr. Traver has done more than make clearly inaccurate claims about so-called “assault weapons.” He has supported banning .50-caliber rifles, regulations that would force many gun shows to close down, the Chicago handgun ban, and repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, which protects sensitive trace data from being misused in frivolous municipal lawsuits against gun makers. He also worked with the Joyce Foundation, which has funded gun-ban groups such as the Violence Policy Center, on the “Gun Violence Reduction Project.”
The fact that Mr. Traver uses the same misleading claims as groups such as the Brady Campaign shouldn’t make it too surprising that gun-control groups are applauding his nomination. Nor is Traver’s nomination very surprising after President Obama appointed two strong anti-self-defense members to the Supreme Court. But Mr. Traver’s nomination is dangerous. Making up claims about guns to demonize them is beyond what is acceptable for someone who wants a position in which he will be regulating American gun ownership.
Why is it?
I remeber history class from like grade school, some thing about a country that passed laws to make it a greater and better for it's people, oh safer by taking away their guns.
1934 was a big year for that kind of thinking.
I wasn't even born yet. but if we didn't stop that nation from taking over it's peoples lifes I wouldn't have happened.
a people with a means of it's own defence are citizen.
take away thier guns subjects.
Quick note on AK-47's vs deer hunting rifles. The AK-47 uses a 7.62x39mm caliber bullet while a common deer rifle can use a 30-06 round. While these are similar calibur in, the 30-06 is a much more damaging bullet. Its heavier and the actual cartridge size is larger (so it hits with a lot more force). A M1 Garand (standard issue WW2 infantry rifle) uses the 30-06 and is readily available to purchase. It just doesn;t look as "bad" as a ak-47.
Really want to control gun violence?
It's pretty simple.
Every center-fire (large caliber) gun must be PINK, with kitten decals.
Posing in the mirror now?
Not so much.
I would just like to add that these weapons look the way they do because form follows function. Military weapons are designed to be highly adaptable to a wide range of body types and conditions. For instance, the M-4 carbine has an adjustable stock which fits a wide range of shooters, a flat-top rail system which allows for easy installation and removal of various types of scopes and optics, and a pistol grip which allows for a more ergonomic grip of the weapon. It is only natural that civilians would desire these improvements as well (improvement, I might add, funded by your tax dollars). The common sense rule which already exists is that you just have to make sure the machine gun parts stay out.
Unfortunatley, a lot of people think that gun owners only buy these guns in order to play Rambo on the weekend. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rifles such as the AR-15 are excellent designs that excel at self-defense, target shooting, and small-game hunting. Part of the stupidity of the '94 AWB is that it basically attempted to demand that gun owners ignore the last 50 years of design improvements.
Consider as well this idiot's "dangerous" issue of assault rifle penetration of police body armour. Few realise that most any hunting arrow from most any hunting bow (especially a crossbow) will go through Kevlar like butter. What's next? The department of Alcohol, Tobacco & Longbows?
Look... Imagine President Obama holding a 306 deer rifle... Everyone cheers! Yea NRA! Now imagine him holding an ak47. Suddenly he becomes alqaida in the media. There is an obvious difference in the capabilities, and emotional responses to different "styles" of firearms. This country has become incapable of settling differences. This president is trying to find resolution instead of legislating things like the deregulation of oil so enron could steal billions from Americans! Work together not against.
Jeff in Dallas said: "Rifles such as the AR-15 are excellent designs that excel at self-defense, target shooting, and small-game hunting. Part of the stupidity of the '94 AWB is that it basically attempted to demand that gun owners ignore the last 50 years of design improvements"
Yet if someone takes that retrogradation to heart out of thier unquestioned love for Uncle Sugar and all his fobiles and whims and so builds up a supply of black powder for thier muzzle loader collection, they suddenly become a potential terrorist and target of the BATFE because obviously the powder can only be used for nefarious purposes and no one could ever possibly need more than 1.5 ounces of the stuff around at any given time.....
It is entirely possible that the BATFE nominee is ignorant about the weapons he is trying to describe. All he really has to know is that he doesn't like guns and he doesn't respect individual freedom.
regarding the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms... READ IT.
It says NOTHING about hunting... it is ALL about US Citizens' right to protect themselves from rogue government, foreign AND DOMESTIC.
IF those governments' military possess "assault rifles" then it was then INTENT of the Founding Fathers that Citizens should have the right to possess "assault rifles"... NONE of our Founding Fathers would have been in favor of "bringing a knife to a gunfight".
this guy is a nut job the only thing he wants to do is ban guns he and others are under the misconception that all guns are bad and if no one owned any the nation would be a safer place.
well the criminals will not give theirs up so why should we law abiding citizens give up ours
It frightens me to think of an unarmed populus that would be at the mercy of those with the guns be they corrupt police or criminals. History has shown that this a recipe for disaster.We all love our cars and trucks but their use and abuse kills more people than guns. But we accept this carnage because of the value we get from driving. The same must be said when it comes to guns. The value we get from gun ownership is immeasurable and many people have forgotten that guns have got us to this point in time and have helped gove us the freedoms we takw for granted.
The appointment of this zellot is of no surprise to anyone, but it is another perfect example of total disregard of the Constitutional Bill of rights, in an attempt to undermine our right to keep and Bear Arms, which it clearly states that the Central Government is forbidden from denying the rights of the Citizens to keep and Bear Arms. Twice the Supreme Court has upheld this as the individual Right of the People. No lie or distortion will change that so long as the Bill of Rights continue to be a part of the United States Constitution, and as a Representative Republic, not a Dictatorship. One would think the Leadership in the Democratic Party would have gotten the message after the whopping they took in the November 2nd 2010 Election.
As an NRA member I agree w/all the above points. What all this silliness and blather comes down to is outlawing looks and style. In which case, once we get the ugly and despicable out of D.C., it will be a ghost town.
Unfortunately, the consequences are much higher now.
Well all the above is true (the comments). You are wasting your time by arguing these points. You will never change the minds of the Liberal pacifists sheep, or the Liberal Elites.Just as they will never convince those who believe in the 2nd amendment, that they are wrong.
And since true journalism is dead and buried in the U.S media, you can't expect them to call the people out on there blatant misrepresentations of the truth.
Unfortunately the only footage you ever see in the news, about the use of tactical rifles, is when they show the radical militia's members, playing Rambo on the weekend.
Thus the stereo type is born.
Before you can ever hope to change their minds, you need to first change their perceptions.
Good luck with that.
Came upon this a little late, but great piece as always. Thanks for raising the profile of this nominee. Gun owners need to stay diligent in the next two years and beyond.
