Posted: 11/15/2008 6:19:23 AM EDT
|
It dawned on me today that the way the AWB is written... it mis-defines what an "assault" weapon is and that this is the only definition (right or wrong) in front of our legislators. Obviously... "assault" is a verb. I could just as easily own an an "assault" steak knife and an "assault" Louieville slugger (a baseball bat).
It may not be wise to fight this on their ground? Meaning... opposing the bill that sounds like a good idea to many on the left may be less effective than offering more correct terminology to show WHY we feel the bill is wrong. I definitely want to fight the AWB. But... would it not be easier to fight if we could get better language or definitions in front of those on the hill. For example: If we declare what an semi-automatic style rifle actually is along with its primary use, could we could not introduce the sporting value into the equation and show there is indeed a place for semiautomatic weapons. ... a "sport tactical" if it has a 16-20" barrel. Used primary for small game, competitive shooting sports and with proper ammunition, a suitable effective home defense firearm with limited wall penetration. Typically a semi-automatic firearm with sufficient features to meet competitive objectives. ...a "sport marksmanship" rifle if it has a 24"+ barrel, etc... Used primarily for competitive target shooting, game shooting, etc. ...a "sport military rifle in civilian form"... A rifle with cosmetic features similar to military rifles where the firearm is rendered by manufacture to be of semiautomatic use only. Typically a "sport tactical" rifle in design and function. ...a "military rifle"... a rifle of both cosmetic and functional design (a fully automatic machine gun) where civilian ownership is registered and already heavily regulated and legislated by the Gun Control Act of 1986(?)... I have seen plenty of "fight" against the AWB... but I've not seen good arguments that clearly give those that claim to defend our 2nd amendment rights something to use to counter the pressures from the left. I am not really looking for the "what part of shall not be infringed did you misunderstand" posts. While I agree with you... I am really interested in helping our legislators appreciate the defense and sporting (competitive, defense practice and hunting) values of these currently legal firearms. Right now... they don't seem to have anything concrete and are fighting for us against some pretty tough language. THEIR language. (Yes... I realize I put myself out there for some attacks... please try to find the spirit of my post) Comments? |