Assaulting liberty

Legislation intended to ban so-called "assault weapons" (which I much prefer to call homeland defense rifles) seems to have gotten popular again. We have a concerted effort in Maryland (I've talked about it here and here). My own pantywaist state of Illinois (where there's always a strong--almost frantic--effort to strip the law-abiding of gun rights--speaking of which, all you readers in Illinois are planning to go to IGOLD on Wednesday, Mar. 14th, aren't you?) is once again aggressively pursuing such a ban. Several other states, of course, are also exploring their own assaults on liberty--Maryland and Illinois are simply the ones I've read the most about. On the federal level, we have perennial freedom hater, Carolyn McCarthy, and her H.R. 1022, which would classify tens of millions of guns as "assault weapons" (I've also discussed that bill before)

Never mind that these politically incorrect firearms are used in a smaller percentage of murders than are knives and clubs--the Second Amendment suppression lobby has identified them as a target of opportunity, and a good first step toward the eventual goal of complete civilian disarmament. In a rare moment of honesty, gun ban advocate Charles Krauthammer, of the Washington Post, said as much, back in 1996.

Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. Charles Krauthammer, columnist, Washington Post, April 5, 1996

McCarthy's idea of classifying nearly every semi-automatic pistol, rifle, and shotgun as an "assault weapon" is actually quite clever. Not only does this mean that passage of the bill would bring the gun ban extremists that much closer to their goal of total civilian disarmament, but the more guns it would ban, the more likely it is to pass!

That last statement is counterintuitive, so it probably needs some explaining. After all, at first glance, one would naturally think that the more sweeping a proposed ban is, the more resistance it would meet, and thus the harder it would be to pass. What one needs to consider is that one of the biggest obstacles to getting people behind a ban of so-called "assault weapons" is the fact that they're used in such a miniscule fraction of violent crime in this country. When defenders of freedom point that out, backed up by unambiguous data compiled by the FBI, and the Centers for Disease Control, only the most virulently anti-freedom legislators can stomach the idea of voting for such a ban. The ban advocates' problem, then, is to find a way to get "assault weapons" involved in more violent crime.

As it turns out, that's easy--since there is no real definition of the term "assault weapon," it can be redefined as convenient, at the whim of any lawmaker. So, all you have to do is expand the definition of "assault weapons" to the point that nearly every firearm is one! That, of course, means that nearly every gunshot death is an "assault weapon" death, thus helping to fuel any drive to ban them. It's brilliant, really. I've mentioned before that knives and clubs are used to wreak more violence than so-called "assault weapons" (as they're usually defined). Perhaps the next step is to start classifying non-firearms as "assault weapons," as well. That way, all the knife and club murders will be "assault weapon" murders, too.

Today, it's "assault weapons." If that works, tomorrow it will be bolt-action, scoped "sniper rifles." After that, all handguns, because "only criminals" need concealed guns. After that, there will be too few gun owners left to fight off the total gun ban that is the anti-freedom lobby's "Final Solution."