Get PJ Media on your Apple

Unexamined Premises

‘Assault’ — The Democrat-Media Complex Strikes Again

December 22nd, 2012 - 5:51 pm

In the meantime, for some common-sense, professionally informed expertise on the subject, do yourself a favor and read this. Yes, it’s lengthy, but well worth the time, and it provides all the, um, ammunition a Second Amendment supporter could ever need in debating lefties about gun control. A sample:

The term assault rifle gets bandied around a lot. Politically, the term is a loaded nonsense one that was created back during the Clinton years. It was one of those tricks where you name legislation something catchy, like PATRIOT Act. (another law rammed through while emotions were high and nobody was thinking, go figure).

To gun experts, an assault rifle is a very specific type of weapon which originated (for the most part) in the 1940s. It is a magazine fed, select fire (meaning capable of full auto), intermediate cartridge (as in, actually not that powerful, but I’ll come back to that later) infantry weapon.

The thing is, real assault rifles in the US have been heavily regulated since before they were invented. The thing that the media and politicians like to refer to as assault rifles is basically a catch all term for any gun which looks scary.

I had somebody get all mad at me for pointing this out, because they said that the term had entered common usage. Okay… If you’re going to legislate it, DEFINE IT.

And then comes up that pesky problem. The US banned assault rifles once before for a decade and the law did absolutely nothing. I mean, it was totally, literally pointless. The special commission to study it said that it accomplished absolutely nothing. (except tick a bunch of Americans off, and as a result we bought a TON more guns) And the reason was that since assault weapon is a nonsense term, they just came up with a list of arbitrary features which made a gun into an assault weapon.

Problem was, none of these features actually made the gun functionally any different or somehow more lethal or better from any other run of the mill firearm. Most of the criteria were so silly that they became a huge joke to gun owners, except of course, for that part where many law abiding citizens accidentally became instant felons because one of their guns had some cosmetic feature which was now illegal.

No matter which side of the question you’re on, do yourself a favor and read the whole thing. Reuters should hire Larry Correia, but that would destroy the whole point of their “journalism,” wouldn’t it?

Also read:

A Gun-Crime Proposal (That Might Actually Help)

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page
Click here to view the 230 legacy comments

Comments are closed.