[theBuckwheat]

Just what exactly is an "assault weapon"? Just a rifle that is too ugly? How does one define it in law so that everyone can know which firearms are and which ones are not banned?

Here is a simple test: why is one an "assault weapon" and therefore banned under the now-expired federal law and one is not?

My thanks to Model1Sales.com for the hotlinks to their fine firearms.

[theBuckwheat]

The following letter to the editor of a local paper responding to a similar demand on the anniversary of the Columbine Massacre pretty much covers the lack of logic about so-called "assault weapons", an proposals to reduce crime by restricting them:

Ryan Kulik of Missourians Against Handgun Violence, in his May 6 Tribune column, appealed for extension of the present ban on "assault weapons." For his reason, he cited the Columbine massacre, with the question, "What if the Columbine gunmen did not have access to these deadly weapons?"

The two Columbine murderers carried a total of four firearms. They each carried a 9mm firearm and a sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun. They also carried 95 bombs.

Under the "assault weapons" ban that Kulik wants extended, only one of the murderers’ firearms is affected. Of the three remaining, the two sawed-off shotguns were banned years ago. All 95 bombs were banned.

How does Kulik propose - in hindsight - to prevent Columbine? By denying the murderers "these deadly weapons," meaning the single, now banned, "assault weapon" in the same exact way the law denied the murderers sawed-off shotguns and bombs? Of course, the murderers also ignored the laws forbidding assault and murder.

By omitting 95 banned bombs while fretting about one firearm they hope to continue to ban, people like Kulik engage in shameless exploitation of Columbine. For them, there is no advantage to mentioning already banned objects.

Indeed, they are a hindrance to their cause because it demonstrates the preordained failure of their predictable solution.