Let’s go through these gun terms just for the heck of it here, for what it might matter. “Assault weapon.” “Assault rifle.” There is no such thing. Go to a gun store and tell ’em you want an assault weapon, and the guy will look around and show you his entire inventory and say, “Pick one.” But there is nothing — no brand, no label — that identifies the weapon as an assault rifle or assault weapon.

There’s no such category.

It has been manufactured, invented, purely for political-agenda advancement reasons. The term “assault weapon” first began being used in the early 1990s by people opposed to the Second Amendment. There was legislation in 1994 that banned “assault weapons,” and they had a definition. What they did was simply repeat a bunch of cosmetic features. They talked about single-action, dual-action triggers and so forth.

It was all designed to impact the low-information citizen into believing that certain weapons are invented for the express purpose of mass murder, weapons you can buy. Now, there are weapons made for mass murder. Chemical weapons, biological weapons, tanks, missiles, rockets. But we’re not talking about that. This was a purely manufactured term, and guess what? Because it didn’t mean anything, because there was no way to enforce it without violating the Constitution the large, the Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004.

But guess who’s back and wants to reinstitute it? None other than Dianne Feinstein and Senator Joe Lieberman, who are calling now to renew the Assault Weapons Ban. Well, it must not-a done much good because they allowed it to expire in 2004. So, once again, we have another purely political move here being authored by DiFi. And only because it sounds like somebody cares. I realize I’m in the minority now, people that deal in facts and reality and not image and inertia.

Continue reading on