Whenever I hear a politican speak, or watch a news report, regarding assault weapons, I always wonder whether they're blissfully ignorant on the subject, or whether they're deliberately spreading false propoganda.
When the mistruths about those dastardly black guns of destruction begin en masse, it can only mean one thing: The Democrats have control of both the legislative and executive branches of government and are ready to try and ramrod through a weapons ban. In '94, Congress was able to push through the AWB by deliberately telling lies about what assault weapons are. And the Joe Suburbanites who wouldn't know the difference between an AR-15 and a .22 long rifle didn't know any better because the media didn't bother to correct the mistruths. In fact, the nightly news was the perfect medium for the gun-grabbers' propaganda because the media was more than willing to play the messenger role by accompanying news stories with videos of AK-47s spraying fully automatic fire and to talk about how assault rifles are not hunters' weapons but soldiers' weapons. The result is a lot of people who otherwise have no problem with law-abiding folks owning guns being supportive of a ban on assault weapons.
Well, it's beginning again. On Thursday, your dear friend and mine, Sen. Carl Levin, stood before the Senate and proclaimed that assault weapons are capable of firing 600 shots per minute. Blissful ignorance or deliberate propaganda? I suspect that Sen. Levin, with as much effort as he has put forth to strip law-abiding citizens of their gun rights, is aware that only a fully automatic weapon is capable of firing at a rate of 600 rounds per minute. And I'm quite confident that he is aware that fully automatic firearms are already prohibited in the U.S.
Six hundred rounds per minute is the equivalent of 10 rounds per second. Can you imagine being able to squeeze off 10 rounds per second with your AR-17 or your SKS? And even if you could, would you be able to reload fast enough to stay on the 600-per-minute pace? I don't think I've ever seen a 600-round magazine for any rifle (for that matter, I'd like to see Sen. Levin get off 600 rounds in a minute with a fully-automatic rifle).
Of course, ignorance doesn't stop with the Democrats. The Republican Party, having long ago stumbled off the path that took them to power in '94 and showing sign of finding their way out of the wilderness as they bumble towards irrelevance, decided last week to elect as their chairman a man who agrees with the Democrats. Lt. Gov. Michael Steele has said that assault weapons should be outlawed. To quote him, "What do you need an assault weapon for if you're going hunting? That's overkill." No, that's laughable. Anyone who's fired a rifle can tell you that traditional hunting rifles, those all-American Winchester .30-.06s and Remington .270s, are much more deadly and precise when hunting big game than an SKS or an AK-whatever.
For Sen. Levin's part, he went on to state that these machines of death are "once again pervading our streets and neighborhoods." The only problem with this particular battle line is that our nation's murder rate, four years after the AWB was allowed to expire and criminals were finally able to begin carrying them again (insert snickering sound here), is the lowest it has been in 43 years. And a report commissioned by the very body in which Sen. Levin serves found that those horrid black weapons are used in only a small fraction of crimes committed.
But, please, let's not let the truth stand in the way of propaganda.
And then Bill Clinton decides to wade back into the assault weapon battle, saying, "Nobody wants to repeal the Second Amendment, and nobody wants to keep you out of the deer woods, but wouldn't it be nice if your children didn't have to worry about being mowed down by an assault weapon when they turn the corner?"
While Sen. Levin is busy making up mistruths about assault weapons, President Clinton is using the much more tactful "play on their emotions with baseless hypotheticals" approach. Sure, it would be nice if my children didn't have to worry about being mowed down by an assault weapon when they turn the corner . . . but, wait. My children have to worry about that now? Maybe I'm not protective enough of my children, but I'm not too worried about my children being mowed down by an assault weapon. In fact, if I had the former president's ear, I would challenge him to find me a few instances of children being mowed down by assault weapons.
You know, I could make a similar statement. I could say, "Wouldn't it be nice if your children didn't have to worry about being run over by a drunk driver when they're riding down the highway?" And if push comes to shove, I'll bet I can find a lot more -- and I mean a LOT more -- instances of children killed by drunk drivers than President Clinton can find of children being killed by assault weapons. In fact I'll bet my next two weeks pay on it. Alcohol Ban, anyone?
And then there's the media. In an editorial today, the Orlando Sentinel actually makes the claim that assault weapons "are not in the hands of good people trying to protect themselves." So if you own an assault weapon, you're obviously a criminal.
The editorial board of the Sentinel damages their own argument with this little nugget: "The line between a legal and an illegal gun are blurry. In Florida, guns are readily available to anyone without a criminal record. But guns routinely end up inthe hands of criminals." In other words, making assault weapons illegal won't make a difference . . . which is precisely what 2nd Amendment advocates have been saying for years (I did have to chuckle when a reader, one of our Canuck friends, pointed out in the comments section of the editorial that, "Until the Orlando Sentinel knows what the real definition of an 'assault weapon' is, you have no business advocating such a ban." Touche).
More misinformation: The Voice of America reports today that sales of military-style weapons are on the increase. The story says: "During the Clinton administration, Congress passed a ban on these so-called assault weapons, making it illegal for civilians to own them. The Bush administration allowed this ban to expire in 2004. For the past five years, assault weapons have been flooding the market."
There are several problems with this bit of reporting. For starters, as we all know, the AWB did not make it illegal for civilians to own assault weapons. And the ban was not allowed to expire by the Bush administration. In fact, Bush had said he would renew the ban if it reached his desk. It was Congress that allowed the ban to expire. How can we expect the people to be informed when the news media doesn't even know what it's talking about.
Back to the Sunshine State, Congressman (and 2010 U.S. Senate hopeful) Kendrick Meeks is calling on Congress to renew the AWB. He tells the Sun-Sentinel, "Definitely when you have these AK-47s in the hands of individuals that are undesirables are something that should not be tolerated." Are we talking about true AK-47s, Ken? Because those are already banned by U.S. law.
And so it goes. A Google news search will reveal several news stories mentioning crimes committed with assault weapons, and all of them take care to point out how many shots were fired with the guns . . . 21 shots, 52 shots, etc. Odd, but I can't recall reading a story that took such careful care to report exactly how many shots were fired during a shootout involving shotguns or handguns.
It's nice to see that the propaganda machine is in high gear.
__________________
Politics, it seems to me, all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour
I am, unfortunately, one of Mr. Levin's constituents. He was, against my vote, re-elected for six more years last November in another landslide victory. He is an absolute communist when it comes to the second amendment.
He has overwhelming support and financial backingby the Labor Unions in Michigan, particularly the UAW. I am amazed at how many gun owning,socially conservative Union members vote for him -- I know many people that do. You challenge them, and they just startyelling their brain-washedrhetoric at you. Just wait until some of them start replying to this!
Our otherUS Senator, Ms. Stabenow, is just as bad. Again, she's a shoe-in withincredibly strong Union support.
Everybody talks about how liberal the Massachusetts senators are....Trustme, Michigan'stwo US Senators are just as liberal.
I can't stand the "why do you need an assault weapon to hunt?" argument. The second amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting; it's intended toprotectcitizens from the tyrrany of government -- the amendment to ensure the protection ofall others.
Excuse me, sir, but your ignorance is showing
