Normally, I keep away from national politics here at The Journal. You can get that kind of thing anywhere, so I keep my focus on local or state politics. Today, I don’t think I can really do that. You see, a California senator has vowed to introduce legislation that, for me, is going way too far in this nation.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein has said she will introduce a new assault weapon ban when Congress returns to work. This one, as she has laid out, will be even more expansive than the 1994 version, and will include the lack of any kind of grandfathering and will require law abiding Americans to turn in their “assault weapons”.
For me, this is going way too far. You see, the so-called “assault weapon” isn’t the preferred weapon of the criminal. Despite what anti-gun groups have claimed, it’s just not. They’re big, heavy, and not particularly easy to conceal. This says nothing of the fact that the AK-47 or AR-15 sitting in the average closet isn’t a real assault weapon.
The term “assault weapon” is defined as a select fire weapon. That means it’s capable of semiautomatic fire, like most of those weapons in private hands are, but with a flip of the switch, it can go to fully automatic fire. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, that makes it a machine gun. Those are already heavily restricted. This new proposal is about banning weapons that aren’t that different from semiautomatic hunting weapons that many more have.
You see, the differences are all cosmetic. Most of the differences are ridiculous things like pistol grips and heat shields. A bayonet lug has never hurt a living soul, proved by the complete lack of drive-by bayonetings in our inner cities.
Why, you may ask, is this really too far? Well, not to sound like my tin foil hat is on too tight, but measures like this are the last step needed for a totalitarian regime to take hold in this nation.
Now, let me be clear. I am not saying that President Obama wants to create a dictatorship. I actually think he is trying to do what he feels is best for this nation, despite the fact that I disagree with him. However, laws don’t end when a president leaves office. We don’t know what the future holds, especially when it comes to who will sit in the Oval Office.
The Second Amendment was our Founding Fathers’ idea of an insurance policy for liberty. Without it, there is nothing to dissuade a dictatorship from rising at some point in our future. Especially when the other pieces are already in place.
You see, when Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, it contained a provision that allowed for the indefinite detention of American citizens. The Patriot Act allows the government to spy on its citizens with, at best, minimal oversight. Executive Orders over the decades allow the president, under times of “trouble” to essentially take over all aspects of our society. These are easily verifiable.
None of this is to say there is a great conspiracy to create a totalitarian regime in this nation. Honestly, I don’t believe it in the least. I think each decision was made with the best of intents when they were made. I’m sorry, but I don’t buy into the whole “New World Order” thing.
What I do worry is that, if Feinstein’s proposal passes, there will be little to discourage a would-be oppressor from seeking the presidency. Would it happen in my lifetime? Maybe, maybe not. However, I have children. I can’t help but also worry about their lifetimes, or their children’s.
Yeah, I admit I’m being a bit paranoid. It’s entirely possible that nothing will ever come of this stuff. I’ll be the first to point out that it’s actually unlikely that Feinstein’s measure will gain much traction. However, that doesn’t mean it there is no need to fight it either.
Sure, we will live either way. Sure, my fears are probably blown out of proportion. But my question is, why risk it?