Ammo For Sale

« « Happy new year | Home | Gun Trends » »

Arbitrary legal construct

The Ever-Shifting Definition of “Assault Weapons”

One Response to “Arbitrary legal construct”

  1. Lyle Says:

    Yes, well I guess we all know that it started with the term sturmgewehr or assault rifle. “Assault” in that case meaning “to charge an enemy position” in warfare.

    The authoritarians saw a convenient ruse they could perpetrate there, in which they would use the “assault” part to refer instead to criminal assault, so now now instead of a fighting weapon they can refer to anything that looks similar as a crime weapon. Technical differences such as select fire verses only semi auto notwithstanding.

    Of course if the People generally understood the decision in U.S. v Miller they’d know the point it makes; that the more “suitable for militia purposes” a weapon is, the more certain the protection of the ownership of such a weapon under the second amendment. I say the Miller decision is ignorant at best, but it does at least acknowledge the ownership of weapons designed for militia use as protected.

    None of this matters much though, as we’re beyond the point, among certain legal circles, where laws mean things. For them it’s not about what the laws mean. Rather it is what level of tyranny they can get away with.

    Those two standards are incompatible and irreconcilable– As we, stupidly, keep reminding them what the laws mean (authoritarians have known all along anyway, and have simply hated the American principles of liberty since the beginning), they operate on a different system. It’s the standard of, “So what? This is what we can get away with now, and once it’s the established norm we’ll see what more we can get away with later.”

    They named this strategic system “Progressivism” over 100 years ago, knowing full well all that it implies. They invented it. They’ve been implementing it brilliantly, the Republicans and the NRA have been playing along with it nicely, and we’re still calling them all stupid, or ignorant.