Congressional Democrats’ ‘Assault Weapons’ Show Trial Fails, But Offers Some Lessons

By September 28, 2019General Posts

 


Gun control advocates intended for Wednesday’s U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing entitled “Protecting America from Assault Weapons” as a show trial exposing America’s favorite rifle and those own it. The effort failed like a wet firecracker.

The bitterly anti-gun committee chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York led the event intended to capture headlines nationwide. However, the Democrats’ latest chapter in the “impeachment” drama upstaged Nadler’s the made-for-media event. But that doesn’t mean we should ignore some important lessons from the Donkey Party’s farce.

In a nutshell, Nadler and his fellow gun-haters reiterated the same old tired talking points and sound bites from big gun control. And from the other side of the issue, patriots and liberty advocates dismantled the left’s talking points with vigorsome drama, and varying degrees of devastationn.

First off, we saw how Democrats would rather attack gun rights than the root causes of crime. In fact, we had seen this recently when Dems didn’t want to include gang members in their proposed red flag legislation, despite the fact that 80% of murders in America are committed by gang members.

At Wednesday’s hearing, for the handful who saw it, Dems probably succeeded in trying to make Republicans look uncaring and heartless though. Let’s face it: fear and emotion trump facts and logic for most low-information voters.

Nadler and friends never once discussed the proven benefits of firearm ownership for self-defense. Those benefits outnumber criminal misuse of guns by a massive factor.  But gun control has become the issue du jourfor radical Democrats, especially with Trump’s roaring economy and foreign policy successes.

When it comes to guns, Dems have avoided saying whether they support confiscation or wholesale bans of semi-auto rifles, but they didn’t even try to say they opposed such radical proposals during the hearing. In other words, yes, they would ban (and confiscate) your semi-auto rifles – indeed any rifle that accepts a detachable magazine. In fact, they would like to see all “high-velocity” rifles banned.

Why are gun control advocates such control freaks? (See the list of what they actually want to ban. It’s lengthy, to say the least.)

Further testimony by gun control advocates, accepted without criticism or rebuttal from Democrats on the committee, included Charlottesville, Virginia, police chief RaShall Brackney. She testified that “I believe that any weapon that can be used to hunt individuals should be banned.”

Translation: Ban all guns except for police.

What’s more, under questioning from Rep. Gregory Steube (R-Fla.), she reiterated her belief repeatedly. “Any weapon that can be used to hunt individuals should be banned.”

Again, just to be clear, the Democrat witness Chief RaShall Brackney wants to ban all guns.

Perhaps the most entertaining portion of the event, and the point where things went completely off the rails for Democrat demanding gun control, was when talk turned to “weapons of war.”

Over at the Federalist, Mark Overstreet covered that angle gloriously:

Like other Democrats at the hearing, Rep. David Cicilline (R-R.I.), sponsor of legislation to ban “assault weapons,” referred to the firearms as “weapons of war designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible.”

Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) made the point that most firearms are “weapons of war.” He didn’t go into detail, but he could have mentioned the bolt-action rifles that were designed for military purposes and that are now owned by millions of Americans, such as the Mauser 1898, the Lee-Enfield, the Springfield M1903, and the Moisin-Nagant. He could have mentioned the made-for-the-military pistols, such as the M1911 .45 cal., the Browning High-Power, the Luger, the P38, the Beretta M9, the incredibly popular Glock, and SIG 320 pistols, also owned by millions of Americans.

It might have caused the Democrats’ brains to blow a fuse, but Collins could have also pointed out that in some instances, our armed forces have adopted firearms that were first in wide use by civilians—including the Winchester Model 70 and Remington Model 700 rifles, the Remington 870 and 11-87 and Mossberg 500 shotguns, and noted above, the Army’s new SIG 320 pistol, which it calls the M17. And to really blow the Democrats’ minds, Collins could have pointed out that Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s legislation to ban “weapons of war” expressly exempts the M1 semi-automatic carbine and M1 semi-automatic rifle, which Gen. George S. Patton called “the greatest battle implement ever devised.”

Collins could have also made the point that according to the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Miller (1939), citing the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision in Aymette v. State (1840), weapons of war, designed to kill evil-doers as quickly as possible, are precisely the type of arms the Second Amendment most protects the right to keep and bear. But that will probably have to wait until a hearing is held after Republicans take back the House.

Yes, we should pound the “weapons of war” canard into the ground every time the gun grabbers trot it out.

Democrats had touted the hearing for weeks, hoping to use it to hammer “assault weapons” in front of the public. Fortunately for gun owners, the Dems’ own Trump Derangement Syndrome headlines pushed Nadler’s dog and pony show far off the front pages. What a shame.

By John Boch

Truth about Guns

Facebook Comments