The proposal would hold manufacturers of firearms, as well as sellers, responsible for crimes committed with those guns. The measure apparently conflicts with an existing federal law, but Democrats in the state reportedly say they want to get that federal law repealed.
Republicans say the gun liability measure would effectively ban those weapons because manufacturers and retailers would be afraid to sell them.
Politicians are defining unlawful actions using legal objects that they cannot begin to define. And the useful idiots are allowing it to happen, because it is occurring at present, to a particular subject they wish to demonize. They are subverting reason and effecting Constitutional and free market ramifications by criminalizing a commercial entity for manufacturing a legal item, that is in turn used unlawfully by a third, fourth or fifth party.
The term assault rifle can likely be traced back to the inception of the Sturmgewehr in 1944. The term has been used sporadically until the last couple of decades, and has been defined by the military, as covering those rifles that are either belt fed or are enabled with an automatic or burst firing function. Circa 1989, gun control advocates adopted the term to apply it to semi-automatic rifles in their effort to demonize them in the public eye. Prior to this reframing, any weapon that could be categorized as an assault rifle, were weapons already restricted and regulated by the NFA. This fact was not lost on some, who then interjected the term assault weapon into the debate.
Harkening back to the previous facts noted about semi-automatic rifles being no different functionally from each other, politicians and gun control advocates were compelled to itemize cosmetic differences in their attempt to brand the term military style in their campaign of demonization….again, of an inanimate object. I’ve asked numerous times on several forums, for anyone to explain what added lethality the features listed in proposals for banning these rifles; rifles that are obviously simply scary looking to some people. In response to that specific query, I received crickets.
But politicians continue to press, even while tacitly acknowledging the gaps in simple logic. I present NY Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol, a strong advocate of Gov Cuomo’s gun control bills.
Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol, who helped negotiate and push through Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s bill, acknowledged that there’s some misunderstanding in the public about what defines an assault weapon.
“It’s a confusing term,” the Brooklyn Democrat said.
Lentol said part of the confusion about the term “assault weapon” comes from people using the term interchangeably with “assault rifle.”
An assault rifle is an automatic weapon or one that can switch between single fire and multiple bursts that the military would use, Lentol said.
The accurate term of semi-automatic rifle doesn’t convey the same amount of manufactured fear; while these same elected representatives have repeatedly shown on national television, they they often don’t even understand the difference between automatic and semi-automatic.
They have done this with magazines and capacity as well. They have taken standard capacity magazines, designed as such for the weapons that accept them, as high capacity….simply because the number of rounds exceeds that which they have decided you need. Never mind the logical leap going from 7-10 round capacity being acceptable – to 20 rounds being unacceptable. Simple redefinition for political purposes…..again. The underlying excuse comes in the form of the State deciding what you need. Is anyone comfortable with that? The government arbitrarily deciding how much of a lawful item you need? I obviously know that it doesn’t bother many in regards to firearms and rounds, because they don’t seem terribly invested in the sovereign right of self defense and the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But think about that precedent for a moment.
If they have no issue with legislation being enacted solely on the political defining of lawful items; redefining that impacts one of our Constitutional rights…..I expect not to hear them complain when government redefinition impacts another Constitutional right, or even an issue that they hold sacred.
Lord knows I don’t want to be accused of treading the slippery slope….but have you stopped to consider just why their is such an impetus on banning these weapons, when they are used in an overwhelming minority of cases of gun violence? Even VPOTUS acknowledges that the current legislation will not yield a tangible effect: “Nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now,”
Because of it’s profound succinctness, I will include the editorial directly below Biden’s quote at the link:
Where there is a lack of integrity, there can be no objective rule of law.