Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Those nasty 'assault weapons'
WND ^ | December 30, 2012 | Joseph Farah

Posted on 01/02/2013 10:09:04 AM PST by Perseverando

Exclusive: Joseph Farah urges 'freedom-loving Americans' to stand up to lawless government

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

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: assaultweapon; banglist; guncontrol; sandyhookgundefense; secondamendment

Thanks to Pookie18 - Today’s Toons

1 posted on 01/02/2013 10:09:13 AM PST by Perseverando
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Perseverando

I remember an identification of an “assault rifle” from a few years back...Let’s see If I can remember it.

Not the exact words, but you should get the point.

A firearm designed for sporting purposes may not be deemed sutable for sporting purposes by the Government.

2 posted on 01/02/2013 10:13:58 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (REOPEN THE CLOSED MENTAL INSTITUTIONS! Damn the ACLU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perseverando

I remember back in the 60s it was “Saturday Night Special”. Most shooters had a vague idea of what that was but the gun control advocates tried to make it mean anything they wanted.

I also remember the JFK assassination was used to pass the 68 gun control act which is still a major thorn in our side. Think about it tho. It took 5 years from the assassination until the bill passed and it took a scumbag like LBJ to get it passed.

3 posted on 01/02/2013 10:22:34 AM PST by yarddog (One shot one miss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perseverando

I can’t wait to see the horror of the press when they discover a scoped 30-06 deer rifle has far more killability over far greater distances than an AR.


Wait for it. It will happen. Sure, you lose the spray and pray bit. But think about it. It’s...(insert horror movie score music here) ...

A weapon of terror!!!!

Those exact words will be used. I’d bet the farm on it. We cannot guard against such a stealth weapon. Children could be picked off without ever knowing where the shot came from!

4 posted on 01/02/2013 10:23:14 AM PST by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perseverando
5 posted on 01/02/2013 10:24:57 AM PST by Candor7 (Obama fascism article:(
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perseverando

Is 2 protected by 1 by way of the Preamble?

A1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...(i.a.)

A2: (i.a.)...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Preamble: (i.a.)..all men are created equal and endowed by their creator (God) certain unalienable rights.

Flow: God has given every human being the right to defend themselves in all circumstances that threaten their immediate and long-term liberty. The right to keep and bear arms is a free exercise of one’s religion (faith and belief).

The second is protected by the first. Thoughts?

6 posted on 01/02/2013 10:27:31 AM PST by Cletus.D.Yokel (Bread and Circuses; Everyone to the Coliseum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perseverando

A local radio station is highlighting a weekend MSM broadcast that is stating that the “Obama-ault” weapon was indeed found in the trunk and was NOT used in the killing.

In a sane world, this would be further proof of the complete sleaziness of the Obamadork, the Pelosib*tch, and Whorehouse Harry.

But, then again, we are living with the progeny of public schools and bottom of the SAT barrel journalism majors.

7 posted on 01/02/2013 10:38:41 AM PST by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yarddog

I thought about it. You’re history is off. The Handgun Control Act was passed in the wake of RFK’s (and MLK’s)assasination, not JFK’s, who was killed with a rifle.

But I agree, much evil has flowed from that law and the 1934 one.

8 posted on 01/02/2013 10:40:35 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

Already happening. The hoplophobes are after .30-06 and 7.62 NATO as “armor piercing” ammo.

9 posted on 01/02/2013 10:51:08 AM PST by Little Ray (Get back to work. Your urban masters need their EBTs refilled.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote
You talkin' about Sandy Hook? So, Adam DIDN'T use a rifle on those kids, contrary to what the medical examiner said on national television? Please clarify.. Interesting how Adam made a point of destroying his hard drive, hmmmm.. I wonder what correspoindence was going on.. Possibly a foreigner mastermind just like 9/11? This was a terrorist attack and not just a wacko lone gunman 'one off', in my opinion. The question is, who profiled the Lanza household as perfectly suitable for such a mission? Home schooled, mental disorder, prepper/survivalist mom, gun-toter, all-American town.. One BIG 'Hmmmmmmm'.. This is the IDEAL family setting.. One which Janet Napolitano has warned us about in her manuals; One which she would choose for such a mission in our insurgent gov'ts quest to get guns banned.

Perhaps all of 0bama's agencies purchased those MILLIONS of rounds of ammo because they knew something would happen shortly afterwards that would suck up all available ammo?

10 posted on 01/02/2013 10:59:11 AM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (IMPEACH OBAMA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Perseverando
The very term “Assault Rifle” was dreamed up by someone on the German General Staff to impress Hitler with a new weapon which had previously been categorized as a submachine gun. Funny how Nazi dictators and American Democrats are impressed by the same term.
11 posted on 01/02/2013 12:05:20 PM PST by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
...Let’s see If I can remember it.

If it's Black it's an assault weapon. Also if it's brown, grey, blue, or silver. Made from metal, plactic, wood, or paper, or any other natural or synthetic material. If it looks scary.

12 posted on 01/02/2013 12:24:35 PM PST by showme_the_Glory (ILLEGAL: prohibited by law. ALIEN: Owing political allegiance to another country or government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty; yarddog

As I remember it.

And to think, in 1962 Thomas J Dodd and Emaual Cellar proposed the first federal law on common firearms.

1962; “We don’t want to take away your guns, we ONLY want to register handguns! Rifles and shotguns will not be affected”.

1964: “We only want to register all your guns, not ban them! Only Army surplus guns will be banned.”

1968: “We only want to register your guns, and ban “Saturday Night Specials” and small foreign handguns along with army surplus rifles!” (They got the ban on 5 shot army surplus rifles and handguns and small foreign pistols)

1970: “We only want to ban Saturday night specials! large handguns and rifles will not be affected!” There was also a call at this time to ban all private possession of ALL GUNS.

1976: “We only want to ban all handguns! Long guns will not be affected!”

1981: “The NRA should give up their handguns, and they can keep their rifles!”- Lee Grant on GMA

1984: “We must ban “assault Rifles, unsuitable for hunting!”

1989: George Bush bans import of foreign made “assault rifles”.

1992: Assault rifle ban passed by Clinton.

2000: first calls to ban single shot .50 cal rifles...

It has always been about handguns. Assault rifles was just a decoy to try and get their anti-gun foot in the door.

Once they get a ban on AWs then they will use the same reasons to go after handguns.

John Kennedy killed with a 5 shot bolt action rifle.

Bobby Kennedy with a .22 Iver Johnson Cadet revolver.

George Wallace wounded with a 5 shot Charter Arms .38spl.

Gerald Ford attacked with a 7 shot 1911 semi auto.

Edmond OK post office with two National Guard 7 shot 1911 pistols.

Ronald Reagan and Jim Brady with an RG-14 .22 pistol.

What do they all have in common? NONE over 7 rounds, yet after each one came a cry of panic to ban them.

13 posted on 01/02/2013 12:33:55 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (REOPEN THE CLOSED MENTAL INSTITUTIONS! Damn the ACLU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Perseverando

All this gagging over “proper” use of the term “assault weapons” is useless and indeed, a distraction.

The government is trying to limit easy access to credible “fighting” weapons: simple as that. Obviously, because they don’t want to have to face a credible fighting force made up of Americans that would no longer abide by their edicts.

Those who would defend their rights as enumerated by the Second Amendment need no more justification than declaring the illegitimacy of any American government that seeks to circumvent the “consent of the governed.”

14 posted on 01/02/2013 12:45:54 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

That is a good summary.

I do remember Bush banning foreign assault rifles. I also remember Bush Jr. banning imports of products from China North who made a large number of pretty decent copies of famous American guns.

15 posted on 01/02/2013 2:43:18 PM PST by yarddog (One shot one miss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson