I am speaking, of course, of the definition of “assault weapons.” From Wikipedia:
Assault weapon is a term which has been given many different meanings. One is that it is any of various automatic and semiautomatic military firearms using an intermediate cartridge. … A common usage is to interchange the term with assault rifle, but unlike that term, “assault weapon” has no consistent or specific definition and so is subject to varying definitions for varying purposes, including definitions that include common non-military-style firearms.
The protean, leftist term “racism” was coined to descredit conservatives and justify socialism. It’s still used to silence critics and advance the leftist agenda. It’s not a term to clarify and persuade, it’s a biased term designed to shame and silence.
Similarly, the current furor about “assault weapons” is also biased against gun owners. The term is designed to inspire fear in the minds of those who don’t know better. It conjures up the image of a homicidal maniac whose only purpose is to assault others – implying that’s the only kind of person who would want to own such a weapon.
The flexibility of the definition of assault weapons is what makes it useful to those who wish to see citizens unarmed and defenseless. It’s used to describe any gun that frightens the average metrosexual progressive, which means ANY gun other than an antique in a museum.
It’s all about the expansion of government power, not safety. So when Obama scolded those who refuse to surrender their gun rights, he was paving the way for boosting the power of the government and placing more restrictions on citizens – that’s exactly what he meant by “Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?”
Re-read that last line. That was a diabolically clever bit of rhetoric. But it’s based on a false assumption, one we need to expose, and we can best do that by arming ourselves with the facts. Here’s a good place to start.