"ASSAULT" WEAPONS

 

Much is understandably made of the preference many jerks have for using "assault-style" guns when conducting their terrors.

But, I must ask if the murderous incidents would NOT have happened BUT FOR the availability of those weapons? Are they the sine qua non of mass killings? I doubt it. And, I don't believe an "assault-style" definition can be written to withstand the strict "due process" requirements of criminal prohibitions. We may all know what it "is," but it can't be easily defined WITH NECESSARY PRECISION. A semi-automatic "assault-style" rifle is still a single-shot-per-trigger-pull action. Fully automatic rifles ("machine guns") are ALREADY tightly regulated by federal law. I have read those laws.

No law is self-enforcing. Criminal laws MUST be logical and unambiguous. A lawsuit against a gun manufacturer may help grieving families "feel better," but if the sale is lawful, how might that generate any liability?

Many journalists Seem to rhetorically demand to know WHY "police" didn't just "stop" the gunmen when "warned" about them. What, exactly, do those people EXPECT the "police" to do? Arrest somebody BEFORE they commit a crime?  Lock them up in jail for their own good, until they can "prove" their sanity? And who, exactly, are the officials "tasked" with checking up on "suspicious" people, and what POWERS do they have to intervene? Who does the "tasking"? By what authority?

I savor the irony of those insisting on exercising their First Amendment rights (quite properly so) demanding that certain "undesirables" have their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights summarily revoked, or suspended, until they pass somebody's "smell test"! Forget "due process"! Just ask those who've been stopped by cops for DWB--"driving while black"!

There are just too many assumptions that the "police" can actually PREVENT a horrible crime from happening, and by my experience, that is almost impossible! Summary authority to intervene and stop people from going about their business is NOT allowable in the US! Real freedom involves assumption of risk that something bad might happen! Sadly, crime "prevention" is mostly a fantasy that exists in the mind.

I certainly believe that larger magazine/clip capacities make such assailants harder to bring down, but those are available for most ANY gun, regardless of "aesthetics." Sadly, I do not believe there is much, if any advance screening of people that could be mandated by law to PREVENT the mass murderers from acting. I think a key may be to only limit their "duration" with mandated smaller clips.

None of that seems to have been proposed, yet, and a "clip" prohibition should be accompanied by a VERY GENEROUS "bounty" offer, to buy up as many of the large-capacity clips ALREADY in circulation as possible! Otherwise, a black market would be immediately established with such a mere prohibition. A "clip" law should also provide severe criminal penalties for people engaging in a "black market" scenario.

The other day on NPR an anti-smoking "advocate" was talking about how RJR Tobacco used the cartoonish "Joe Camel" to promote cigarette consumption by children. I believe a jury so found and awarded big bucks against RJR. How has it been "proven" that children have been influenced to smoke by "Joe Camel," then gotten "government" to censor the silly ads?

I am a lot more concerned about intrusive government than I am about children smoking or possible lunatics with guns.

___________________________