listen here

Patriot Broadcast From the Trenches Schedule 

buy gold scottsdale

Those Nasty ‘Assault Weapons’

WND – by Joseph Farah

Can anyone in Washington define “assault weapon”?

Can Barack Obama?

Can Dianne Feinstein?

It is a meaningless term designed by people like Feinstein, who would prefer to ban all or most firearms, specifically to confuse the public.

Yesterday, Obama said on “Meet the Press” that he would work hard on banning “assault weapons” and what he calls “high-capacity magazines.”

Of course, definitions were in short supply.

So what is an “assault weapon”?

Quite simply, it’s whatever the government says it is.

Does that shock you?

In the past, so-called “assault weapons” have been banned for manufacture and sale to citizens of the U.S. merely on the basis of what they look like, not because they behave any differently from ordinary semi-automatic weapons that fire one round at a time.

Automatic weapons, which fire multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger, have been strictly regulated under gun control laws since 1934.

But in 1994, Congress took a step toward banning semi-automatic weapons, which represent the vast majority of firearms sold and purchased by citizens in the U.S., by adopting the meaningless term “assault weapons” based solely on how they look and how “scary” they sound.

That’s when certain models of AR-15s were banned, along with AK-47s, even though they are simply semi-automatic weapons like most other rifles manufactured and sold. For instance, the 1994 law banned semiautomatic rifles with a pistol grip and a bayonet mount. In addition, the law also restricted some magazines that carried more than 10 rounds. In all, 18 firearms models were banned.

At the time, it wasn’t important to gun-grabbers that their action was a mere gesture. It served two purposes:

1)      It set a precedent for future classifications of firearms as “assault weapons” that could be banned;

2)      It allowed legislators to feel good about themselves and to suggest to their anti-gun constituencies that  they were doing something to further their cause;

Now, here we are at the end of 2012, following the horrific massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and it’s time for phase two of the war on the Constitution’s Second Amendment.

Keep in mind, the choice of weapon by the shooter at the school would have made no difference. Little children and unarmed teachers and administrators would not have been able to stop the slaughter of those kids if he had come in armed with a shotgun or a revolver.

That’s where Obama and Feinstein intentionally insert confusion into the debate – along with their lapdogs in the media who parrot the term “assault weapons” as if it means something.

Just because a firearm looks like a military weapon doesn’t make it any more dangerous, even in the hands of a maniac or a serial killer, than any other gun that fires one round at a time.

So what motivates this “assault weapons” hysteria?

It’s very simple. It’s part of a plan to render the intent of the Second Amendment null and void.

What is the intent of the Second Amendment? Is it to protect hunters’ rights, as some suggest? Of course not. The founders understood that only a well-armed citizenry could ever hold its own government accountable and prevent it from achieving a monopoly on force – a necessary precedent for imposing tyranny.

That’s what happened in the Soviet Union. That’s what happened in Nazi Germany. That’s what happened in China. In fact, that’s what happened before all of the great government-sponsored genocides of the 20th century.

Maybe you don’t think that’s possible here in the good old USA. And maybe you’re right.

But one thing is certain: More guns equal less crime. That’s what all the statistical evidence reveals. Fewer guns equal more crime.

That’s because violent criminals intent on killing innocent people don’t care about obeying gun laws. Gun laws are only effective at preventing law-abiding citizens from getting firearms – firearms that prove to be a major deterrent to violent crime.

Do you think the sick, twisted monster who murdered those little schoolchildren in Connecticut would have been deterred by his fear of breaking a gun law? How absurd.

Here’s the point: Americans have an absolute, inalienable, God-given right to defend themselves – from criminals and from tyrannical government.

It’s time for freedom-loving, God-fearing Americans to stand up to their increasingly lawless government and mean it when they say, “You’ll take my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/those-nasty-assault-weapons/#7OzcAOCp28mzLuOV.99

This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.
1952
Don't forget to answer the Security Question before you post comment.

8 Responses to Those Nasty ‘Assault Weapons’

  1. John Q. Parvenu says:

    Farah writes: “So what is an “assault weapon”?

    Quite simply, it’s whatever the government says it is.”

    As are “terrorists,” “dissidents,” and “hate crimes.”

    Cheers,

    JQP

  2. GREGO says:

    Yes its what ever they say, and if and when they want to come and take them my actions will be whatever I say, any law they try and pass has no legal authority what so ever, hell I say from now on all the guns are free to all, well this is how silly there new gun unlaw should be to all of the people.

  3. Brad says:

    A recent study estimated that over 80% of mass casualty shootings in the last two decades were perpetrated by mentally unstable people that were on or recently stopped taking anti-psychotic meds, and occurred in so called “gun free’ zones. We should take a hard look at how often we prescribe these meds, especially SSRI’s, and rebuild the safety net of psychiatric hospitals that have been dismantled over the same period. Rather than take guns away from good guys, making them easier targets for the bad guys, stop advertising for violence by creating ‘gun free’ zones and instead allow responsible adults to carry in and around schools, malls, etc. and put up signs that instead say “Gun zone: criminals enter at your own risk” Armed citizens stop armed violence thousands of times a year; most often, the police arrive after the violence is over and fill out some paperwork. The recent mall shooting in Oregon was stopped by an armed citizen, and so was the recent mall shooting in Texas (by an off duty sheriff, no less) Media reporting on both of these incidents was very light compared to Newtown, because the agenda is to further gun restriction, not save lives. Of course, I’m preaching to the choir with logical ideas. but our govt is not about logic, it’s about further consolidating power, and to do that, the last step is to separate as many of the people from their guns as possible.

  4. Alberet says:

    MEDIA ASSAULT THOUGHTS. The immersion of a society in the thoughts and ideas of senseless violence unaccompanied by consequences. The flooding of Media venues such as music, movies, video games, TV, with thoughts and ideas designed to induce violent behavior.
    There is no action that is not preceded by the thought and idea, and MSM has immersed America in violent anti-social thoughts….. and been publicly proud and boastful of it.

  5. CXJ says:

    The most dangerous Assault Weapon is the Communist News Media. The Communist controlled media has started a relentless and endless barrage on political, economic and social fronts. They are taking no prisoners, literally. The barrage’s intended victim is LIBERTY. Communists hate liberty and the truth.

    Isn’t Barry Soetero the same guy who during the presidential race stated that he was going to create a “Civilian Army” as well equipped as the United States Army? Helloooo is anyone home?

    Barry’s Citizen Army just graduated their first class of 15 to 17 year old soldiers. He’s arming them with the weapons of the United States Army?!

    How does this BS fit in to the gun debates? Barry doesn’t believe the American people can handle the right to keep and bear arms, but he’s pouring sophisticated weapons into the hands of his brainwashed, pimple faced, heads full mush “Brown Shirt Army.”

    He can go **** himself… People buy, steal or beg for as many weapons and ammunition that you can get your hands on and be strong and be brave. Good day.

    • TranceAm says:

      “The most dangerous Assault Weapon is the Communist News Media.”
      Funny that you say that. I yesterday published a reaction to a NYT op-ed on WRH.

      Let me copy an paste:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&

      Reaction:
      {
      Making on their way out a fast buck, by selling the rights to rip up the Constitution on Television. (Pay TV that is.)

      Happily it is only an opinion by Mr LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN. Op-Ed Contributor

      And a real American knows what they say about opinions. Some have big, Some have small, Some have tight, and some just make dirty smears on paper, Like you Mr Seidman,

      Unlike the documents of the founding fathers, they wrote something that is still relevant, and when read with good morals, would only generate a better and better country, with higher morals and standards, since that is what Freedom allows people. To become all they can be, instead of all what you see them worthy off…

      Enjoy your freedom of speech, afterall, it was drenched in blood before it was encoded in that outdated document.

      To ad information from another article: BY OMISSION, THE NEW YORK TIMES WIPES ISRAEL’S CRIMINAL RECORD CLEAN

      ” The New York Times serves Israel’s interests by keeping the American public in the dark about the true nature of Israel’s occupation.”

      Also in the dark considering the Constitution.
      Domestic enemies with a newspaper.
      }

      Yeah. weapons of mind destruction, based on faith in authority.

  6. Rick Costello says:

    There should, simply, be ZERO debate on this subject – as I highlight here: http://resistancetononsense.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/sandy-hook-gun-control-the-real-argument/ it is simply illegal to initiate changes to our Constitution except through the amendment process. “Comply with Article V” should be our response to every attempted piece of gun legislation.

    RC

  7. Herb Scornwaffles says:

    What good is an underpowered non-federalist militia? Case closed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

What is 8 + 6 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
IMPORTANT! To be able to proceed, you need to solve the following simple math (so we know that you are a human) :-)