Assault Weapons Ban Imminent

Congressional hearings are warming toward DE-legitimating any firearm which might be defined as an "Assault Weapon" ... which means (apparently) any firearms which might be used to "hunt a human being".

I think that's fairly all-encompassing .. don't you agree?

Congress holds "Protecting America from Assault Weapons" hearing | Buckeye Firearms Association: by Jim Irvine 7:00AM THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2019

On September 25, 2019 the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled, "Protecting America from Assault Weapons." This was a giant display of hatred of guns, and those who own one, or might benefit from defensive use of a firearm. Chief RaShall Brackney insisted that, "Any weapon that can be used to hunt a human being  *emphasis added* should be banned." That was applauded (inappropriately) from the audience and defended when given a chance to modify that statement. She meant what she said.  David Chipman testified that every gun should be subject to the NFA restrictions currently placed on fully-automatic firearms and suppressors. He wants to ban any gun capable of defeating law-enforcement armor (every rifle) as a first step.]

 Nota Bene: not all of the previous paragraph is included in the original article.

(I have no doubt they would like to ban every gun that any of you own.)

He testified that a barrel shroud (a safety device to protect one's hands from burns) allows killers to kill more people ...which is a bizarre extension of his outrageous precept!

It is true that any firearm  might be proven to be a fatal weapon when used against a fellow human being ... which is why guns are a popular possession; many people consider them to be an effective first-level means of self defense against would-be felons (who also are armed with guns!)

'Firearms owners' can usually be grouped among one or more of the following  categories:

• competition shooters
• self defense firearms owners
• hunters
• plinkers

ALL of these groups may own firearms which would prove lethal when  used against aggressors!  (Often, if their guns were to be used against people .... even the lowly .22 long rifle cartridge, which is generally considered among the "least lethal" cartridges,  may prove lethal when used to defend against a person!)

However, the concept ignores the need for less physically able (women, elderly, etc.) may need to arm themselves in defense against their stronger, more physically powerful attackers.  

It is a consistent trend among anti-gun folks to ignore the need for weaker people to defend themselves against stronger attackers.  Articles (such as the one cited above) tend to ignore this subset of human frailties, and in doing so they perform a disservice to those who most need an "edge" to defend themselves against aggressive people who may otherwise become their predators.

In many communities, it is typical that aggressors are reluctant to attack "frail people" because the local firearms laws allow potential victims to be armed for self defense.   Often, it's not even necessary that potential victims be armed ... the very fact that they are "allowed" by their government to be armed is sufficient to provide a cautionary warning against would-be predators.

This is why we must be liberal in allowing people to arm themselves against potential predators.  

There are a plethora of tales where innocents are protected against malicious attacks because local laws allow innocents to be armed,

The very fact that they MAY be "Packing Heat" is often sufficient to dissuade attackers from predating their weaker prey; not because their prey is armed, but because local laws allow that their potential victims MAY be armed.

Criminals are cowards, in the end.  

We must allow our innocents to arm themselves .. even if they choose NOT to do so!

Often, the very threat is sufficient.   But let's let them pack heat, anyway ...  using a gun to threaten a mugger is marginally less traumatic than being beaten and robbed of all you possess.