How Will Assault Weapon Laws Ban Something That Doesn't Exist?


In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, liberal politicians lined up to exploit the massacre to force their gun control agenda down our throats while useful idiots such as Piers Morgan have cheered them on in the media. While these are promoted as a way to prevent similar tragedies from occurring, the facts don’t support their assertions.

A lot of what is passed around in the media is the result of deliberate lies and misinformation.

Start with assault weapons. There is no such thing as an assault weapon. Assault weapon is a scary sounding term used to label some semi-automatic weapons so that they can be targeted for banishment in a politically safe manor. Assault rifles, or fully automatic rifles, are what the military uses. When you hold down the trigger of an assault rifle, it continues to shoot until the magazine is empty. These are illegal. If somebody tells you that civilians have access to the same weapons as the military, then they are lying. Let me repeat this just to be clear: it is illegal for civilians to own the guns that the military uses. It has been since 1934. Semi-automatic weapons, which the term “assault weapon” refers to, fire one bullet every time you pull the trigger. Pulling the trigger and holding it down will only fire one bullet. In fact, it is cosmetic modifications which make a weapon safer or more comfortable for the user which turns a standard hunting rifle into a scary assault weapon.

Furthermore, Obama’s executive orders, 23 in all, represent not an attempt to prevent another Newtown-style massacre but an attempt to work towards banning all guns. Numerous commentators have pointed out that Obama’s executive orders would not have prevented the Newtown massacre. In 2004, the Department of Justice said that renewing the assault weapons ban would have a negligible effect on violent crimes rates, while trampling the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. Adam Lanza was prevented from purchasing guns, and stole weapons his mother had obtained legally.

Guns save lives. They empower the weakest in society to fend for themselves without the help of the police. In Chicago, it takes the police almost 4 minutes to respond to a “Priority 1” emergency requiring immediate attention. The time is almost surely higher in the impoverished neighborhoods which see the highest crime rates. Handgun proliferation has been statistically proven to reduce violent crime rates. Since Newtown, there have been various stories of individuals using weapons to defend themselves and their property from criminals. Fortunately, most of these stories never gain notoriety because there is no innocent victim left dead or wounded.

People who are pro-gun control are not anti-gun. Remember that it takes guns in order to force peaceful citizens to give up their property, so proponents of gun control simply favor monopolizing guns in the hands of the police and military. Kind of ironic considering how much faith liberals put in those institutions.