Select Page

'Tis The Season For Lies: Common Untruths Liberals Say About Guns

'Tis The Season For Lies: Common Untruths Liberals Say About Guns

In the wake of the tragedy in Orlando, liberal politicians have come out in force to voice their obligitory, traditional gun legislation demands. With Hillary Clinton and much of the mainstream media now following script and calling for a renewed ban on assault rifles, America’s gun enthusiasts are capable of no other reaction than puzzled bewilderment. Afterall, with an army of researchers working for the candidates and media, they have to know an AR 15 isn’t an assault rifle. Right?

Wrong.

Bernie Sanders, on a recent edition of Meet the Press, boldly announced how he “believed that we should not be selling automatic weapons which are designed to kill people.” 

The United States actually agrees with the Independent Senator from Vermont, even to the extent of passing The National Firearms Act (NFA), on June 26, 1934. The law made obtaining an automatic weapon nearly impossible in the United States, and no mass shooting has involved such a weapon since the finalization of NFA. 

(If you happen to be a liberal, please sit down for this shocking announcement) AR actually stands for “ArmaLite rifle,” and the confusion being experienced is because of cosmetic similarities to military weapons and irresponsible rhetoric by the left.

The 1993  ‘Assault Weapons Ban,” a piece of legislation Democrats constantly boast about, was created by politician who appeared to have never held a gun. After sitting down and outlining what makes a gun dangerous, the frivolous bill came to include the following outline:

A rifle is considered an “Assault Weapon” if it has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following: 

1)  folding or telescopic stock: A folding or telescopic stock makes a weapon easier to carry, and is especially useful for hunters who may have to carry their weapons for miles before finding game. While politicians attempt to say this ban makes it harder for would-be attackers to conceal their weapons, stocks are available in any length off the shelf; this law only bans stocks that can change size. If someone purchased a particularly small stock and someone else purchased an adjustable stock that folded down to the same size as a small stock, the first man is buying a standard rifle – and the second man is buying a deadly “Assault Weapon.” 

2)  pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the action: A pistol grip on a rifle can make a weapon easier to handle, especially for people with small hands, i.e., women. The grip itself doesn’t make the weapon fire more quickly; the weapon is simply easier to hold and aim.

3+4) grenade launcher or bayonet mount: We can skip over the grenade and bayonet functions, since events using such weaponry are exceedingly rare in even the worst parts of the world

5)  flash suppressor: Contrary to popular opinion, all a flash suppressor does is redirect the flash to the sides of the barrel instead of the top. The flash suppressor prevents the shooter from being blinded by the flash each time they shoots. 

As you can see, “Assault Weapon” has almost no real definition, as it was simply the invention of pandering politicians trying to pass a law against semi-automatic weapons using misleading rhetoric. Virtually none of the qualifications for “Assault Weapons” have anything to with the functional aspects of a rifle. The weapons that fulfilled the criteria for “Assault Weapons” were responsible for less than 1% of all deaths, even before the ban. At best, no lives were saved to justify the stripping of Second Amendment right. At worst, the ability for Americans to defend themselves has been diminished. 

‘Tis also the season to hear politicitions and media members say the standard hunting rifle wont be included in any potential ban of the “assault rifle” known as the AR 15. Well, a standard rifle is semi-automatic, could shoot the same rounds an AR 15, and could be fed the ammo through a detachable magazine. In fact, aside from cosmetic differences like possible paint work, there is no operational difference between the two weapons. 

Conservatives get a hard time for not being responsive to “gun legislation talks,” but how responsive can anyone be when confronted with such grave distortions of reality? A presidential candidate and his thousands of followers are demanding a ban that was enacted in the 1930’s.  The other Democratic candidate wants a ban on a weapon because it’s aesthetically unpleasing to herself and her constituency. Grossly misinterpreting reality and propagating ignorance certainly has no place in an honest discussion. Conservatives are ready to have such a discussion about guns – but unfortunately they have no one to speak to.

About The Author

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.