Our elite political class is so busy stealing—manipulating their stocks and bonds based on their insider knowledge of pending business regulations, and arranging bag jobs with lobbyists—that all they can think of to save defenseless school children is to revive the silly assault weapon ban.
And, of course, do nothing to remove those engraved-invitation signs of “gun-free zone” at school entrances.
The pols like the “assault weapon” ban, apparently, because in addition to requiring no time or thought, it plays well with their chums in the news media (and an increasingly large number of propagandized voters) who are likewise lazy and almost totally ignorant of things firearm. They both just like “assault weapon” ’cause it sounds so military.
It isn’t. It’s a phrase the first ban made up, to define rifles and pistols that “look” military, as opposed to, well, for self-defense, target shooting and hunting, I guess. Who could fathom the intricacies of Diane Feinstein’s or Chuck Schumer’s brains? Ms. F., by the way, has a concealed carry permit. She takes her defense seriously.
All that the first ban—which passed in 1994 in the heyday of the first Clinton term and expired, on schedule, in 2004—accomplished was to vastly increase sales for the civilian, semiauto version of the military fully auto AR-15, which never had sold much before, and new, compact semiauto pistols. Both now are big sellers. Way to go, pols.
At no time during the hypocritical “ban” were the military-looking weapons illegal to sell, buy, own or shoot, after a few minor mods, such as removing the AR rifle barrel’s mount for a bayonet. Not many mass murderers wanted to get that close to their prey, anyhow. Too personal, etc. Not dissimilar to the politician’s attitude, for that matter.
And, of course, the 10-year “ban” had no noticeable impact on mass murders. Nor will a new one.
So long as the federal-mandated “gun-free zone” signs continue to advertise helpless victims for the deranged, and school boards prefer political correctness to arming teachers or staff—despite well-known delays in police reaction time—more children, inevitably, will be slaughtered.
As gun-instructor-turned-novelist Larry Correia says in a piece worth your time, “Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.” And he adds this:
“The man that attacked the midnight showing of Batman didn’t attack just any theater. There were like ten to choose from. He didn’t attack the closest. It wasn’t about biggest or smallest. He attacked the one that was posted NO GUNS ALLOWED.”
Not that President “Gutsy Call” cares about that, or anything but his next vacation. Apparently.
UPDATE: Here’s one of our robed rulers weighing in against “the social utility of high-capacity magazines” for so-called assault weapons, as if only he could define social utility. How about giving me plenty of ammo for taking down the sumbitch attacking me? I’d define that as high social utility. And, according to the 2nd Amendment, my definition trumps the judge’s. He being a minion of the state the 2nd is designed to protect me from.
THE TEXAS SCRIBBLER 