Well, the anti-gun clown show that is the House Judiciary Committee got center ring billing the last couple of days for the hearings on HR 1808, the “assault weapons” ban. The torrent of misinformation was truly spectacular to behold. From dubious experts to the usual suspects, I’m forced to conclude that these people are either mind-numbingly ignorant or the most shameless liars I’ve ever witnessed.
Send in the Clowns
First and foremost was Rhode Island’s David Cicilline, who sponsored the initial bill. You may remember Cicilline responding to due process concerns over red flag laws with, “spare me the bullsh!t about Constitutional rights.” A real statesman, that Cicilline.
Anyway, this noted firearms expert displayed a graphic of a stabilizing pistol brace and claimed it operated like a bump stock, allowing a semi-automatic firearm to “be fired like an automatic weapon.” When challenged by Kentucky’s Thomas Massie, Cicilline doubled down. He’s completely wrong, of course. But when has that ever deterred a zealot?
Not to be outdone, Penguinesque committee chairman Jerry Nadler tried his hand at answering Massie’s questions about banning the 5.56/.223-chambered AR-15 but not the 30.06-chambered M-1 Garand or the 7.62×39-chambered SKS. Nadler responded with this gem: “The M-1 of World War II and various weapons we saw the Chinese marching with [SKS], uh, those ancient guns were far less lethal because…they may have had a larger slug, but the muzzle velocity was much less, they didn’t, uh, tumble, and that’s why they’re excluded from the ban.”
You really can’t make this stuff up. Just one more example of a control freak with no actual knowledge of what he’s trying to control. I think I’m being unfair to DC Comics’ Penguin by comparing Nadler to him. But the Penguin probably understands that an “assault weapons” ban benefits criminals like himself, unlike Nadler.
But fear not, the Democrats had an “expert” lined up to corroborate their nonsense. Dr. Kyleanne Hunter, PhD, is a former Marine attack helicopter pilot whose academic specialty is, I kid you not, “the intersection of social integration and military effectiveness, with a focus on gender and unconventional warfare.” Sounds like an “assault weapons” expert to me. I guess Massad Ayoob wasn’t available.
Dr. Hunter explained to the committee that “This weapon was chosen by the United States Army in Vietnam because it was designed to shoot through a standard issue military helmet at 500 yards. So, what that does to a civilian who’s wearing nothing…is liquefy organs.”
Well, damn, I guess I better get a refund on my master’s degree in American Military History. I always thought the Army chose Eugene Stoner’s rifle because years of research showed that infantrymen didn’t need to carry full power battle rifles like the M-1 and M-14 anymore. They could carry lots more of the midsized 5.56 ammo, thus allowing them to project more sustained firepower in a select fire carbine which was also lighter. Not to mention the Germans and Soviets reached the same conclusions in the 1940s.
And who the Hell this side of Carlos Hathcock tries head shots at 500 yards anyway? Dr. Hunter no doubt served honorably, but she doesn’t know jack squat about small arms development.
I’ve also heard many a Vietnam vet complain that the M-16 wasn’t worth a damn at 500 yards. And I was told personally by Staff Sergeant Carlos Martinez not to shoot at anything beyond 400 and preferably not that far. I never argued with Sergeant Martinez. All it takes is a simple look at a ballistics chart to call BS on that one. And let’s be clear that the .308 M-14 is far more effective against “standard issue military helmets” than a 5.56 M-16. But since when have anti-gunners let mere facts interfere with theater? The good doctor needs to stick to gender studies.
But wait, there’s more. I really could go on for pages, but I’ll only subject you to one final wild claim. Georgia’s Lucy McBath wants us all to know why we never see bodies after a “mass murder.” It seems the bodies “no longer exist.” Yep. Who knew the humble AR-15 was actually a 30mm Avenger cannon? If the bodies aren’t vaporized, the exit wounds “can be a foot wide” and “the skull explodes on impact.” McBath’s son was murdered by someone with a gun, so that no doubt drives her opinions. But it’s not an excuse to deliberately lie. Anything to get that elusive “assault weapons” ban, I guess.
There was plenty more from court jesters like Hank Johnson, Sheila Jackson Lee, and the ever-flatulent Eric Swalwell. Blah, blah, blah. But there were some high points. Ohio’s Jim Jordan, Texas’ Chip Roy, and Massie continually called out the lies. But the committee has more Democrats than Republicans and the bill advanced on a party line vote. I’m almost as skeptical of Republicans as I am Democrats but that’s how it fell in this case.
Finally, attention-whore extraordinaire David Hogg was tossed from the chamber after mouthing off. He said some crap that isn’t worth repeating. As usual.
Deliberate Liars and Useful Idiots
Either way, it shows how agenda-driven these people are. It shows how they will knowingly lie to our faces. It shows how they know those lies will carry no consequences. But why don’t they? Sometimes we gun owners are our own worst enemies. How many bird hunters don’t care about AR-15s because they don’t own one? That’s just one example, but you’ve likely heard it all before.
The fact is that gun owners, voting as a bloc, could stop this. But we don’t. If a sitting United States Congressman can call Constitutional rights “bullsh!t” in open committee with no pushback, what does that tell you about their priorities? Do you think their Constitutional oath means a damn to them? No, it does not.
They are willing to eviscerate the Second Amendment for their political agenda. And it’s not just about scary black rifles. If they win here, it won’t be long before your deer rifle is a “sniper weapon.” “Weapon” is a scarier word than “rifle,” you know. Then it will be handguns because, after all, most firearm related deaths involve handguns. On and on.
If these people will take away the right to self-defense, what else are they willing to take away? Think the First Amendment is sacrosanct? The last two and half years should disabuse you of that fantasy. It’s about power. That’s it. An armed populace is a threat. Oh, there are useful idiots like Jerry Nadler, David Cicilline, and Hank Johnson. Who can forget Johnson’s sincere concern about Guam capsizing if too many people are on one end of the island?
I can’t say who’s pulling their marionette strings. But remember these people exempt themselves and all government agencies from their laws. They dislike guns but reserve them for themselves and their protectors. See anything wrong with that?
Funny Clowns or Scary Clowns?
So, what are you going to do? Yes, YOU. This can be defeated in the Senate, and likely will be. But you can bet it will get plenty of votes. As always, we have to be the squeaky wheel. And by squeaky, I mean make them sit up and take notice because they are so damn sick of hearing from us. I don’t know about you, but I’ve had enough of catching the blame when deranged losers decide to get famous.
We can also educate some of the people who believe this garbage simply because they don’t know any better. All they’ve heard is what the media and jackasses like Cicilline and Swalwell feed them. Invite someone to the range. Don’t try to be tacticool. Don’t preach at them. Just take them target shooting. Show them what “gun safety” really looks like. Many of those folks just need an alternate view. But we have to give it to them.
If the gun controllers were serious about fixing the problem, there would be investigations into psychotropic drugs being pumped into kids at the first sign of the latest trendy diagnosis. Or concerns about the destruction of the nuclear family and the lack of strong father figures. Or stoking the next wannabe by plastering his predecessor’s face all over the TV. But nah, that doesn’t further the agenda. That might actually fix the problem and make people less dependent on the Beltway cartel.
An armed man or woman is a citizen. A disarmed man or woman is a subject. So, are these people stupid or are they liars? Maybe they’re both. Neither bodes well for the nation. I tend to think that, aside from buffoons like Johnson, Lee, and Swalwell, they have an endgame. But an armed citizenry precludes whatever that is. We can fight it now or we can fight it later. But the clown show will continue. Until Bozo turns into Pennywise.
