- WND - http://www.wnd.com -

Those nasty 'assault weapons'

Posted By Joseph Farah On 12/30/2012 @ 5:00 pm In Commentary,Opinion | No Comments

Can anyone in Washington define “assault weapon”?

Can Barack Obama?

Can Dianne Feinstein?

It is a meaningless term designed by people like Feinstein, who would prefer to ban all or most firearms, specifically to confuse the public.

Yesterday, Obama said on “Meet the Press” that he would work hard on banning “assault weapons” and what he calls “high-capacity magazines.”

Of course, definitions were in short supply.

So what is an “assault weapon”?

Quite simply, it’s whatever the government says it is.

Does that shock you?

In the past, so-called “assault weapons” have been banned for manufacture and sale to citizens of the U.S. merely on the basis of what they look like, not because they behave any differently from ordinary semi-automatic weapons that fire one round at a time.

Automatic weapons, which fire multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger, have been strictly regulated under gun control laws since 1934.

But in 1994, Congress took a step toward banning semi-automatic weapons, which represent the vast majority of firearms sold and purchased by citizens in the U.S., by adopting the meaningless term “assault weapons” based solely on how they look and how “scary” they sound.

That’s when certain models of AR-15s were banned, along with AK-47s, even though they are simply semi-automatic weapons like most other rifles manufactured and sold. For instance, the 1994 law banned semiautomatic rifles with a pistol grip and a bayonet mount. In addition, the law also restricted some magazines that carried more than 10 rounds. In all, 18 firearms models were banned.

At the time, it wasn’t important to gun-grabbers that their action was a mere gesture. It served two purposes:

1)      It set a precedent for future classifications of firearms as “assault weapons” that could be banned;

2)      It allowed legislators to feel good about themselves and to suggest to their anti-gun constituencies that  they were doing something to further their cause;

Now, here we are at the end of 2012, following the horrific massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and it’s time for phase two of the war on the Constitution’s Second Amendment.

Keep in mind, the choice of weapon by the shooter at the school would have made no difference. Little children and unarmed teachers and administrators would not have been able to stop the slaughter of those kids if he had come in armed with a shotgun or a revolver.

That’s where Obama and Feinstein intentionally insert confusion into the debate – along with their lapdogs in the media who parrot the term “assault weapons” as if it means something.

Just because a firearm looks like a military weapon doesn’t make it any more dangerous, even in the hands of a maniac or a serial killer, than any other gun that fires one round at a time.

So what motivates this “assault weapons” hysteria?

It’s very simple. It’s part of a plan to render the intent of the Second Amendment null and void.

What is the intent of the Second Amendment? Is it to protect hunters’ rights, as some suggest? Of course not. The founders understood that only a well-armed citizenry could ever hold its own government accountable and prevent it from achieving a monopoly on force – a necessary precedent for imposing tyranny.

That’s what happened in the Soviet Union. That’s what happened in Nazi Germany. That’s what happened in China. In fact, that’s what happened before all of the great government-sponsored genocides of the 20th century.

Maybe you don’t think that’s possible here in the good old USA. And maybe you’re right.

But one thing is certain: More guns equal less crime. That’s what all the statistical evidence reveals. Fewer guns equal more crime.

That’s because violent criminals intent on killing innocent people don’t care about obeying gun laws. Gun laws are only effective at preventing law-abiding citizens from getting firearms – firearms that prove to be a major deterrent to violent crime.

Do you think the sick, twisted monster who murdered those little schoolchildren in Connecticut would have been deterred by his fear of breaking a gun law? How absurd.

Here’s the point: Americans have an absolute, inalienable, God-given right to defend themselves – from criminals and from tyrannical government.

It’s time for freedom-loving, God-fearing Americans to stand up to their increasingly lawless government and mean it when they say, “You’ll take my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.”

Receive Joseph Farah's daily commentaries in your email

BONUS: By signing up for Joseph Farah’s alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email.
  • Where we will email your daily updates
  • A valid zip code or postal code is required
  • Click the button below to sign up for Joseph Farah's daily commentaries by email, and keep up to date with special offers from WND. You may change your email preferences at any time.

 


Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/those-nasty-assault-weapons/

© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.