Assault Weapons and Other Progressive Lies

Once again the progressives and their lapdog media accost our eyes and ears with fear mongering.

There are plenty of sources showing how having more guns is safer than fewer, or no guns.  Progressives use lies to further their agenda. The ultimate goal simply is control of the people.

First, the term “gun control” is nothing more than a carefully crafted term to make their efforts appear compassionate. One can no more control a gun, than a car, or other object. A gun by itself, is no more a danger than a typical rock on the side of the road. People control would be more accurate, but then they could never get away with that.

Understand this, advertising is a tactic by which you are convinced to buy something you otherwise might not. A good advertiser can make you want something so much that you do not do your due diligence before making the purchase. Some reasonable research is required to be a prudent consumer. Progressives are excellent advertising specialists, they use emotion to coerce people to buy what they are selling.

“Assault rifle” is a made up term. First, it is important to understand what an assault weapon isn’t. The terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review: ”Prior to 1989, the term “assault weapon” did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of “assault rifles.”



The first use of the term “assault rifle” was used by Adolf Hitler in reference to the StG 44. The big advancement at the time was the move to a fully automatic fire rifle that was small and light enough for a man to carry.  More modern advancements were made resulting in the M-16 and AK-47, which are both fully automatic fire rifles. The military does not use the term assault rifle; it simply uses the actual rifle’s designation such as M-16, M-4, etc. The M-4 is a fully automatic rifle capable of firing up to 950 rounds per minute.

In 1986 the federal government banned the sale of modern fully automatic guns, otherwise known as “machine guns.”  Older automatic weapons are available for civilian purchase, but an extensive background check including fingerprints are required, in addition to a federal license. There are no records of any legally owned fully automatic firearms being used in criminal activity. There are a handful of incidents using illegally converted or purchased “machine guns” since 1934, however, they are essentially nonexistent.

The AR-15 and other similar semi-auto firearms can be fired 45-60 rounds per minute, while fully automatic weapons can fire nearly 1000 rounds per minute. According to David Kopel, writing in The Wall Street Journal:

 “What some people call “assault weapons” function like every other normal firearm—they fire only one bullet each time the trigger is pressed. Unlike automatics (machine guns), they do not fire continuously as long as the trigger is held. … Today in America, most handguns are semi-automatics, as are many long guns, including the best-selling rifle today, the AR-15, the model used in the Newtown shooting. Some of these guns look like machine guns, but they do not function like machine guns.”

The truth is, they operate the same way as many hunting rifles and a typical rifle (Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle) used to protect livestock as well as many shotguns and pistols. Each gun in this picture fires one round each time the trigger is pulled.

Here’s where the advertising comes into play:  the problem with each of these guns is, perception. We’ve all known the guy with the car that is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  He’s driving the the junker that looks like it won’t make it out of the driveway, but it has a big engine that could smoke all the competition.

Appearance has nothing to do with performance.

According to a 1988 report by the Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun lobby:  [H]andgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority… Assault weapons … are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

In the late 1980s, more than 20 years after the first AR-15 was sold to the public, a move was put forth joined by a willing media to confuse the public into thinking the AR-15 was a fully automatic machine gun. The plan culminated in 1993 with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB). The only way it was passed was with a sunset on the law after 10 years.

It is believed the ban was a major reason for the democrat party defeat in 1994 and even Al Gore’s loss in 2000. Since the AR-15 and civilian AK-47 are not fully automatic machine guns, another definition was required. Because assault rifles were already banned, and because an outright ban on semi-automatic firearms wasn’t considered politically feasible, the AWB defined assault weapons as semi-automatic firearms that shared too many cosmetic features with their fully automatic counterparts.

A collapsable buttstock, flash hider and pistol grip became illegal. Remember, these are simply cosmetic items; they have nothing to do with the operating parts of the gun. According to a Department of Justice study, the firearms that the AWB would ban were used in only 2% of gun crimesPublic perception, however, was that the law had banned machine guns and weapons of war. Magazines were also limited to 10 rounds or less.  On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect.  A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban’s real purpose: [N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

Manufacturers, of course, began to produce guns which were in compliance with the new law; however, there were still mass shootings, including the Columbine School shooting, where assailants used “post ban” firearms. The murderers used the 10 round magazines, and simply used more of them. This video demonstrates that magazine capacity has essentially no effect on the lethality of a gun.

In 2004, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired. It was not renewed. The AWB had failed to have an impact on gun crime in the United States. A 2004 Department of Justice report concluded: Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. [Assault weapons] were rarely used in gun crimes prior to the ban.

Intent to never let a crisis go to waste, the move to ban these guns was renewed after the Sandy Hook School shooting. The AR-15 and other so-called assault weapons were widely depicted as military weapons whose only purpose was to rapidly kill large numbers of people. However, the AR style rifles are the single most popular rifle in America, used widely by hunters and by competition shooters. Additionally, it’s light weight and reduced recoil make it an excellent self-defense rifle.

The attempt to outlaw or restrict these fine weapons is ever present, even though more people are killed each year by clubs and rocks than by rifles of any kind. James Holmes, in the Aurora movie theater shooting, used a shotgun. Banning any firearm because of cosmetic factors is either misguided, or politicians have ulterior motives. Neither of those bodes well for the republic.

A friend asked me to put something together to help explain just what is being discussed. Hopefully I have answered hers and others’ questions, however, something else needs to be said here. I have written extensively on the Constitution and the founders, and how both the leaders and people need to be a moral and virtuous people.  The further we get from Godly principles, the more we need masters to rule over us.

The 2nd Amendment was quite specific: “Shall not be infringed,” does not leave much to the imagination. If it weren’t so serious, it is often quite comical to watch a judge or politician twist themselves in a knot trying to justify a law that clearly infringes that natural God given right.  “Keep and bear” does not restrict in any way.  I carry all the time.  ALL the time. While it is my right, I view it as my responsibility.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s