When politicians such as Bernie Sanders says that citizens don’t need “weapons of war”, like so-called “assault” rifles, he is directly insinuating an infringement of the Second Amendment.
This inalienable right isn’t about target practice. It’s not there to solely protect you from home invaders. It doesn’t exist so that you can fill your smoker with venison come autumn.
The Second Amendment exists so that Americans, should they so choose, can defend against invasion or overthrow their own government. That’s it. There’s no other interpretation whatsoever. The right to bear arms is literally for war, making statements such as Bernie’s asinine from the get-go.
This is also why we mustn’t allow politicians to decide where or not we’re allowed to have “assault” rifles, which are really just tough-looking, pistol caliber long guns with comfort-creating technology. No amount of pea shooters or single action revolvers is going to fend off the Russian military or an American-born dictator’s troops.
Apparently no one told that to Republican lawmaker Pete King.
An assault weapons ban that Democratic leaders have been reluctant to advance despite strong support among their rank-and-file members in the House just got its first Republican backer — Long Island Rep. Pete King.
“They are weapons of mass slaughter,” King said shortly after his backing became public on Congress’ website Monday.
War against a hypothetical tyrannical force would qualify as “mass slaughter”, wouldn’t it?
King didn’t mince his words.
“I think the assault weapons ban is timely now, especially in view of the shooting in El Paso and Dayton,” King said.
This belief, along with President Trump’s recent support of “red flag” laws, are a worrisome combination when it comes to the Constitution, and there is little doubt that 2020 voters will take this concern to the ballot box next November.