Outlaw Assault Magazines

Outlaw Assault Magazines

Nan alluded to, if “Assault Magazines” were outlawed the massacre at Newtown wouldn’t have occered.

By de Andréa

December 20, 2012

Now I don’t know what mental institution Nancy Pelosi escaped from or what she means by “Assault Magazines”, surly she doesn’t mean the Saturday Evening Post, I don’t think that is an assault magazine.  Maybe she means the magazine published by the NRA.  And then, how would one assault someone with a magazine anyway?

Yes you read that correctly.  Nancy Pelosi used the term assault magazines in an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell in talking about how the kind of firepower used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings should be outlawed.  And if those high capacity magazines were Illegal would the shooter have said to himself, “these magazines are illegal, so I guess I will not go to the school and kill a bunch of kids today”.  Oh Yeah!

Even some guns I own myself are considered by the left to be “assault weapons.”  I have not cared what people have called them in the past, to be honest, that does not make them anymore or less dangerous than any other gun. 

However, in reading a piece by Jan Morgan, I think I’m going to stop referring to them as such.  Here’s what Morgan writes:

My AR is not an assault rifle.
It is not an assault weapon.
It will never be used to criminally assault anyone.
My AR will only be used for defensive and sporting purposes.
It is simply a modern musket.

Continuing with that point, let’s define our terms here.  “Assault” is defined by Noah Webster as:

“1. An attack or violent onset, whether by an individual, a company, or an army.  An assault by private persons may be made with or without weapons.  As assault by an army is a violent hostile attack; and when made upon a fort or fortified place is called a storm, as opposed to sap or siege.

2. An attack by hostile words or measures; as, an assault upon the prerogatives of a prince, or upon a constitution of government.

3. In Law, an unlawful setting upon one’s person; an attempt or offer to beat another, without touching his person; as by lifting the fist or a cane, in a threatening manner.  If the blow aimed takes effect, it is a battery.

So Morgan is correct.  My weapons, and I’m sure many of yours, will never be used to criminally assault anyone.  In fact, if we were to use the term “assault weapon,” it could literally be applied to anything; a baseball bat, knife, pencil, barbed wire, or even a car!”

However, Pelosi moves the argument up a notch.  Now she is not even calling for a ban on what she wrongly calls “assault weapons,” but is calling for “assault magazines” to be outlawed!

She told Mitchell on Tuesday:

“How does something like this happen?  Because a person with impaired judgment had access to firepower that should be outlawed.  There is no reason why these assault magazines – and that’s what they are.  We’ve got to call them what they are, assault magazines.  You aren’t even allowed to have that on a hunting gun in California, which has three shots.”  Pelosi thinks the fire-power originates with the magazine.  It is doubtful Nan even knows what a magazine is much less which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.  Yes Nancy Pelosi should be banned from coming within 1000 feet of a gun.  And Nancy’…hunting rifles in California have a minimum of 5 rounds not 3…a 3 round magazine wouldn’t even be worth manufacturing.

What the heck is an assault magazine anyway?  Are people with AR-15s and AK-47s now throwing their fully loaded magazines at people?  This is so far over the top it’s rather difficult to take seriously, but we must because these are the mentally disabled people that are framing the argument, and if we do not correct the misuse of language, then we will inevitably lose the argument and the fight over our rights and freedom.

That being said, I’ll remind Pelosi and the rest of the ignorant communists that the Second Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Since the Supreme Court has ruled that this right applies to individuals and since the Amendment begins by defining the purpose for the right to keep and bear arms is with regards to a “well regulated militia and the security of a free State, not hunting, so the reference to hunting is irrelevant.  The problem comes for both the courts and the Congress with that nagging little bit at the end, “Shall not be infringed.”  This is the beginning point of where the liberals start.  Our voices must be loud in pointing that out.

Thanks for listening – de Andréa