Commander wrote:About a week ago, the Dallas Morning News had an article about the run on "assault weapons". No where in the article was it defined what exactly an assault weapon was. So I wrote a letter to the editor and was surprised that it was published last Sunday as I received no notice from DMN that it would be. I basically stated that most people assume that an assault weapon is fully automatic and defined what fully automatic was versus semi-automatic. I also mentioned that in a lot of cases what determines what is an "assault weapon" was cosmetic features such as a folding stock or a pistol grip and not how it functions (ie automatic) or its caliber.
Well, in todays DMN, there is a letter that refers back to my letter of last week:
Assault label is arbitrary
Re: "Use those guns in the military" by Sandy Elkins and "An Assault Weapon, defined" by Phillip Herbst
I was glad to see the comments from Mr. Herbst in the same column as those from Ms. Elkins. Most people don't understand that an assault rifle, by the government's definition, is anything that doesn't have to be manually cocked each time you fire a shot. What needs to be governed is the selector switch that changes a rifle or gun from semi-automatic to fully automatic. Military weapons and ammunition are some of the most accurate that can be bought.
Art Haynes, Gun Barrel City
At the risk of sounding dumb - Help me understand his comment about the selector switch. I was unaware that rifles with such switches were available for purchase. Does this guy know what he is talking about? Or is he referring to some after market modification of the gun?
The writer was right in saying that people don't understand, but then he revealed the depth of his own ignorance.
I have had two letters published in the DMN recently on the obama and "assault weapons" issue, and sent a few more.
The one I wish they had published was this one, but maybe I used too many big words.
It is interesting to observe the prejudice and bigotry displayed by those who would practice "gun control."
They use meaningless terminology as justification for their unknowing attitudes. They gleefully mix metaphors while lecturing us on the evils of something they obviously know nothing about. And they steadfastly refuse to recognize that they are practicing prejudice and bigotry.
The only difference between this, and racial prejudice and bigotry, is that the perpetrators are targeting an inanimate object, which they can "prove" is a bad thing by using enough pejorative terms in describing it, and attempting to cast themselves as taking a moral stand against crime while castigating the owners of such inanimate objects as potential if not real criminals.
Oops, did I fail to mention that I was talking about people who are so "up in arms" about assault weapons, even if they don't know what they are?
Jim Longley