Digital Access

Digital Access
Access from all your digital devices and receive breaking news and updates from around the area.

Home Delivery

Home Delivery
News, sports, local and regional entertainment and more!

Text Alerts

Text Alerts
Choose your news! Select the text alerts you want to receive: breaking news, prep sports scores, school closings, weather, and more.

Email Newsletters

Email Newsletters
We'll deliver news & updates to your inbox. Sign up for free e-newsletters today.
National Editorials & Columns

Those Nasty 'Assault Weapons'

“Assault weapon” is a meaningless term designed by people like Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who would prefer to ban all or most firearms, specifically to confuse the public.

Recently, President 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?

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 all, 18 firearm models were banned.

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

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

• 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.

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. Then Obama and Feinstein — along with their lapdogs in the media who parrot them — begin using the term “assault weapon” 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.

This “assault weapons” hysteria is part of a plan to void the intent of the Second Amendment. Our founders understood only a well-armed citizenry could ever hold its government accountable and prevent it from achieving a monopoly of force necessary for imposing tyranny. That’s what happened before all of the 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 gun laws are only effective at preventing law-abiding citizens from getting 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.”

Loading more