- Joined
- Apr 17, 2019
- Messages
- 18,487
- Reaction score
- 7,332
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
And I'm not talking about what the term "assault weapon" or "assault rifle" means to firearm enthusiasts, so let's not get into that again. I'm talking about the way it is defined in pretty much every existing or proposed ban in the US based on certain feature that are included on many semiautomatic weapons, like pistol grips and adjustable shoulder stocks.
The idea of an "assault weapon ban" is one of the top darlings of the gun control movement. Yet there is no feature of a firearm that distinguishes "assault weapons" from many other semiautomatic firearms, that has been shown to be meaningful from a public safety point of view. To put it simply, there's no rational reason to believe that anyone ever died because "assault weapons," specifically, are legal for civilians to own.
So the only rational conclusion is that anti-gun lawmakers are lying to their base, taking advantage of their ignorance, and pandering to their fears, all for the purpose of deluding them into thinking they want to do something meaningful.
The idea of an "assault weapon ban" is one of the top darlings of the gun control movement. Yet there is no feature of a firearm that distinguishes "assault weapons" from many other semiautomatic firearms, that has been shown to be meaningful from a public safety point of view. To put it simply, there's no rational reason to believe that anyone ever died because "assault weapons," specifically, are legal for civilians to own.
So the only rational conclusion is that anti-gun lawmakers are lying to their base, taking advantage of their ignorance, and pandering to their fears, all for the purpose of deluding them into thinking they want to do something meaningful.