“Assault weapon” is just a PR stunt meant to fool the gullible
It is defined in legislation by cosmetic features that frighten white bread suburbanites, but do not involve any functionality of any gun. We tried it, conservatives said it wouldn’t work, and it didn’t work. Yet, it is the liberal answer to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, Conn.
Why do the hard work of actually making a difference, when with no work at all you can perform a meaningless and irrelevant gesture that won’t make any difference? A Connecticut state law already banned assault weapons. The difference that made in stopping the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary: zero, zilch, nada, as the saying goes…
Only the above policy of arming the teachers can stop such crazed madmen. The government does not even have the power to take away guns from dangerous criminals and insane mass murderers. We can’t even stop drugs and illegal aliens from crossing the border, and drugs and illegal guns even show up in prisons. Guns will always be available to those who want to obtain them. Legally mandated helplessness by the victims and those who could protect them only results in maximum vulnerability, as at Sandy Hook Elementary.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I always thought that a baseball bat is an assault weapon.
OldEnglish on January 2, 2013 at 9:12 PM
I was watching a rerun of Kojak from 40 years ago the other night … guilty pleasure … it featured a sniper and somewhat glorified, or humanized him, as he only shot “bad” guys. Anyway, me knowing nothing about rifles, I did catch the dialog that said he was using an AR-15 with .223 caliber bullets, which was substantially what the shooter in Newtown used.
Makes me think, what’s old is new again. And, we should look at banning Kojak reruns.
Paul-Cincy on January 2, 2013 at 9:13 PM
“Assault” weapon is a political contrivance. A political contrivance with no basis in fact and no rationality or consistency of definition. An “assault” weapon is whatever the politicians say it is, in whatever legislation they use to ban it.
petefrt on January 2, 2013 at 9:15 PM
Ah yes the legendary “Sturmgebat”
Oldnuke on January 2, 2013 at 9:26 PM
Paul-Cincy on January 2, 2013 at 9:13 PM
Evidence a few days after the shooting stated the perpetrator had an AR rifle and left it in the car. The shootings were accomplished with handguns.
mad scientist on January 2, 2013 at 9:30 PM
petefrt on January 2, 2013 at 9:15 PM
The definition of “assault weapon” includes select burst or full auto fire; this isn’t readily available to the public.
If you read the Ca law concerning banned weapons it really comes down to “it looks scary”.
mad scientist on January 2, 2013 at 9:32 PM
I am so GD sick of having this argument that I’m out of things to say.
Come take our guns. I mean that. Try. How are you dumbasses gonna take them? An army of anti-gun leftist hippies with no guns?
There’s also a real shortage of ammunition now because people are stockpiling. My local store was even all out of .22LR shells last week.
Gun-grabbing is only going to end in disaster, and that’s the last thing this country needs.
But anything to distract us all from Obama’s economic & foreign policies destroying our country in a way that guns never could is good, right?
We need to shut up about guns and focus on the real problem.
baldylox on January 2, 2013 at 10:47 PM
Just remember how many gullible people there are in this country (hint: Look at who’s president).
Anyway, gullible isn’t even a real word, since it’s not in the dictionary. Go ahead, look it up.
RoadRunner on January 2, 2013 at 10:55 PM
Wrong. That’s the definition of ‘Assault Rifle’. ‘Assault Weapon’ has no meaning whatsoever and was coined in the 90′s by the anti-gun lobby. The difference between a Bushmaster .223 AR-15 and Grandpa’s old hunting rifle is purely cosmetic. Anti-gun zealots want to call the former an ‘Assault Weapon’, when I’d much rather be shot by that than Grandpa’s 30-30 semi-automatic deer rifle.
Most AR-15s are black and scary-looking, too. Is there some sort of racist undertone to the anti-gun movement? It’s a legitimate question. Are the anti-gun people just racists?
baldylox on January 2, 2013 at 10:57 PM
But it didn’t ban the “assault weapon” used in Sandy Hook. Don’t worry, Congress will fix that loophole. It will not escape the next “assault weapons” ban.
xblade on January 3, 2013 at 12:05 AM