Second Amendment Hyperbole

Christopher Merola at Townhall.com explores the hyperbolic bloviating from the anti-gun left (and right*)…

When Obama and his friends in the media describe semi-automatic weapons as “military style assault rifles,” it causes one to shriek as we are led to believe that anyone can purchase the same rifles as the ones used by our military. This is a fraud and a bald faced lie. The hyperbole is repeated over and over until it becomes accepted as if it were fact. It is not. By law, all military style rifles sold on the commercial market (such as the AR-15) are modified so that they are semi-automatic, meaning they can only fire one round at a time. They work just like a hunting rifle; they only fire one round at a time. Gun control activists would like us to think that the automatic function that allows these rifles to fire multiple rounds per second, much like a machine gun, is included in the commercial versions. This is totally false. Federal law already prohibits automatic rifles and machine guns from being sold in the commercial market.

So what is the purpose in framing semi-automatic rifles as if they were automatic rifles? By creating an emotional response to a tragedy, the power grabbers create consensus for their policies. Were they to level with us and demonstrate that an AR-15, sold on the commercial market, works just like any other rifle that fires one round of ammunition at a time, most people would see no cause for alarm and no cause for confiscation.

Second Amendment hyperbole is the tool used to exploit gun crimes when they occur. Total gun confiscation is the end game. If banning some rifles for now gets our nation closer to that goal, then convincing the people that they are in danger of a military weapon that fires like a machine gun, even though such weapons are already illegal, serves the agenda well for the time being.

There’s a saying that you’ll often see expressed on bumper stickers available at most gun shows: “Gun control isn’t about guns; it’s about control.” This should be abundantly clear to anyone who remembers 1994. The Clinton Gun Ban did absolutely nothing to lower the nation’s violent crime rate. In fact, it did precisely nothing. The violent crime rate was declining before it passed and it continued to decline afterward. (Some may argue that the decline slowed ever so slightly after the law passed, but the change is in the statistical noise.) Now since Barack Obama was alive and an adult in 1994, he could not help but notice this little fact. The same is true of the Jurassic-era Senator from California, Dianne Feinstein. So then, what could their motivation be for a new semi-auto ban? It clearly can’t be to reduce crime; we already have ample historic evidence showing that such a ban won’t affect violent crime. The only other possible motivation would be hostility directed toward an armed and thus free populace.

(*Remember that there are some on the Right that are just as hostile to your freedoms as any far-Left Democrat.)