BY TOM LODGE – Senate Bill 219, an “assault weapons ban”, is a misnomer, and will do nothing to reduce crime or improve public safety. It has everything to do, however, as one more incremental step in the planned prohibition and eventual confiscation of all citizen-owned firearms.
The term “assault weapon” is usually equated with the term “assault rifle”. An assault rifle is a military rifle that is capable of full-automatic fire, where multiple rounds are fired continuously when the trigger is pulled one time — that is, a machine gun. Full-automatic firearms are heavily restricted, and regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934.
No hunter or target shooter currently uses an “assault weapon”. The term is a political and media invention, intended to cause confusion among the public by intentionally misleading them to believe that “assault weapons” (as defined in legislation) are full automatic firearms when they are not.
The firearms erroneously called “assault weapons” and targeted for prohibition in SB 219 are semi-automatic in operation; that is, they have the ability to fire but one round per press of a trigger. Semi-automatic firearms are the most common types of firearms used by hunters and target shooters. Included in the SB 219 prohibition list is the most popular hunting and shooting rifle in America today.
Addressing the real causes of gun violence such as mental instability and moral collapse is difficult. Blaming firearms that have the cosmetic appearance but lack the functional identity of military weapons is easy. Senate Bill 219 misses the target. Its only accomplishment is to deprive law abiding citizen’s access to the firearms they most prefer.
Pictured is a popular shotgun used for waterfowl and spring turkey hunting. It is camouflaged, as is the hunter, so game birds will not notice it.
This is the same firearm with a pistol grip positioned behind the trigger. There is no difference in these shotguns other than how they look. They are functionally identical.
So it is with the proposed banned firearms listed in SB 219, which are functionally identical to many firearms not listed in the bill. The only difference is they have some cosmetic features common to military firearms and have therefore arbitrarily been deemed “bad” by ill-informed Bill proponents and the even less informed popular media.
Crazy and evil people kill and maim others, not law abiding gun owners, hunters, and shooters. Banning guns legitimately used by the latter does not make society any safer. Focus on the root cause of mayhem will.
[…] Does Senate Bill 219 turn your Daddy's Duck Gun into an Assault Weapon? BY TOM LODGE – Senate Bill 219, an “assault weapons ban”, is a misnomer, and will do nothing to reduce crime or improve public safety. It has everything to do, however, as one more incremental step in the planned prohibition and eventual confiscation … Read more on Hawaii Reporter […]
While every thing in the article is true it misses the point completely on the purpose and intent of the Second Amendment. Reading the writing's of the Founders makes it perfectly clear the intent of the Second is for defense against tyranny, both foriegn and domestic. The Second is not about our right to hunt, it is entirely about our defense.
The article also misses the point that the intent of so called assault rifle bans has to do with making society safer. It does not and it cannot. It has to do with tyrants disarming the populace.
Ask yourself this . . . What is it the government has in mind for us that they feel they cannot do if we are armed?
I didn't realize I was writing an article on the 2nd Amendment. I apologize. I thought I was writing an article on what an introduced bill does to perfectly sane firearms by purposefully mischaracterizing them as "assault weapons" and then using that hyperbole to exact an emotional agreement by those that aren't properly schooled in firearms, which many gun owners aren't either, by the way.
If you wish to delve into the 2nd Amendment, you also have to delve into the cases heard by the Supreme Court. That was not at all the thrust of this article. There are interesting cases regarding the 2nd Amendment, us vs miller seems to suggest that we as an unregulated or unorganized militia have rights to the same firearms as the military, other don't recognize that. In Dick, 1902, it was suggested that we have three classes of militia, the Army, the National Guard, so to speak, and the rest of us disorganized types… and all presumably have the rights to military equipment..
There are other cases that don't so clearly afford gun owners unfettered access to firearms and then you have Justice Scalia more recently suggesting through innuendo that limits on gun ownership would not be unconstitutional. Where do you want to start?
The proposed gun bans have little to do with reality. They are simply attempts to exploit an il-informed and overly emotional public. The proposed definition of "assault weapon" would make that duck gun into an illegal weapon by simply adding a sliding stock and a pistol grip. The function of the shotgun doesn't change…merely its physical appearance.
most of the gunmen involvedin the mass shooting in schools and movie theatres,etc were on psychiatric drugs.mainly SSRI Anti-depressants,etc, such as ritalin,prozac,zoloft.these are prescription drugs and all have serious side-effects.a lot of doctors,psychiatrists especially,have pushed these drugs on more and more young people especially,for some time now.some serious side-effects of these psychotropic drugs incude suicidal and homicidal behavior.we need an investigation.it's not the guns killing people.
Comments are closed.