6 thoughts on “Senate Judiciary approves assault weapons ban”

  1. The term “assault rifle”, in US military terminology, refers to a rifle with selectable burst or auto-fire.
    The term “assault weapon” has no meaning in firearms terminology, but it’s a pejorative for weapons with “ugly” cosmetic features, just as you say. That means that a legislator may try to use the term “assault weapon” as Senator Feinstein is doing: a semi-automatic rifle that looks like it would fit into the modern battlefield. The “ugly” features make the weapon more useful in most cases: the barrel shroud protects you from burning your hand, as you might on an old Henry rifle, and the pistol grip makes it easier to point the weapon with your right hand while you ask the dispatcher where the cops are on the phone in your left hand. The bayonet stud is mostly for looks but the muzzle flash suppressor is handy when you’re shooting in a darkened hallway. The weapon works fine with neither stud nor suppressor, though.
    The two key elements that the grabbers want to block at this point are the semi-automatic mechanism and the magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. If they get that down our throats, they’ll see what else they can get away with.
    It is no justification for people like the president or the California sisters that these weapons and their 30-round magazines have been used for the very rare crime of mass murder. A couple of America’s worst mass murders have been committed with gasoline-accelerated arson fires. It seems likely that Holmes or Lanza might have used those if they had not had access to firearms.

  2. Why do we continue to allow the great lie that these are “assault weapons”? THEY ARE NOT!

    There is not a single full auto, or burst mode device on the entire list.

    They are listing those with “scary looking” features. Well, you know what? If someone is kicking my door in I want the scariest looking weapon I can have. That way I MIGHT not have to actually use it. Blood is hard to clean out of floating hardwood floors.

  3. In terms of science and data, this proposed ban achieves nothing to promote public safety. The incidents involving weapons with magazines of 15 or more rounds are few, although they do happen. There are plenty of incidents involving handguns with 10-15 round magazines but very few involve emptying the magazine. Most homicides occur with a few shots fired, almost always from handguns.
    These are sentinel events. Police need to be ready to respond to the very rare event of offenders using military-style weapons but they also need to be ready to round up stray cattle, especially in Montana.
    Here’s my prime argument, though. People like President Obama and Sen. Feinstein say that ordinary citizens don’t need and must not have weapons of war. Could those folks please look up the meaning of “militia”? The militia is the citizenry in arms, ready to protect the nation and themselves. The “militia” are supposed to have weapons suitable for war.
    During the LA riots in 1992, the militia activated informally as store owners took up arms to protect their families and their property. In extremis, the militia are to protect the nation from the government, though I don’t believe that’s imminent.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.