Semantics as Assault Weapons in the Gun Control Debate
In an attempt to help us understand the term “assault rifle,” gun control advocates often point us to the “obvious” dictionary definition for “assault.” This carries an unfortunate consequence. Any rifle used in an assault becomes an assault rifle.
Using this logic the Winchester 1873 lever action rifle — the one that “won the West” — is an assault rifle. By some accounts, the Sioux used it rather effectively in their assault on General Custer, whose forces, unfortunately, did not have it at their disposal. Does this or other instances of this venerable rifle’s use in “Wild West” assaults land it on assault weapons lists? Nope.
Curiously, the M1 Garand, which won many a battle for American soldiers during World War II— presumably involving an assault or two — does not qualify it for the “ban it now!” list either. Never mind the M1 Garand’s round packs a bigger punch than the much maligned AR-15’s. (Note: “AR” stands for “ArmaLite Rifle” rather than “Assault Rifle.”)
We could go on. We could itemize the numerous instances of modern semi-automatic rifles, of the “ranch, farm, and hunting” varieties, that do not make the “ban it now!” list. Many of these shoot the same exact bullet an AR-15 (or name your offending rifle) shoots, at more or less the same fire rate.
At this point, the shuffle-tap-dance argument will throw in terms like “tactical” and “weapons of war.” Anticipating these word choices will fail along the lines of the “assault” claim, the words “contemporary” or “modern” are often tossed in. Unfortunately, the clever semantics only serve to mangle the argument.
First, note the various flavors of Glock pistols in current issue to the US military. As such, those too are “weapons of war.” A Glock or two might have been involved in a “tactical assault,” no less. Yet, we are not talking about banning them. A panoply of Glock pistols appear in a gun shop’s display case near you.
Second, the argument self-defeats gun control thinking on another count. At the writing of the Bill of Rights, the musket was a weapon of war. The musket — even by most gun control advocates’ reasoning— was the very type of “arms” the writers of the Second Amendment had in view. It also deserves mentioning how these writers were also acquainted with and did not care to disallow early versions of (yes, available then) repeating firearms. On what grounds, then, do we ban modern “weapons of war” if their inclusion falls within the scope of the Second Amendment? (If you think this applies to only weapons available in the 1700s, consider the First Amendment’s relationship to publishing technologies available then vs. now.)
Yes, “contemporary weapons of war” were in fact the very thing the writers of the Second Amendment intended for the people to “keep and bear.” Here a truly disconcerting thought may poke through: today’s universe of “contemporary weapons of war” includes far more than what we can get at the local gun store. If you apply the what-can-an-infantryman-carry-today criteria, the AR-15 may seem tame in comparison.
This lands us squarely in what for many of us may prove an uncomfortable but inescapable conclusion. Yes, “weapons of war” kill. Throughout history, the continuous progress of weaponry has gradually increased its lethality. By the time the writers of the Bill of Rights came on the scene, said lethality had advanced by a significant amount over, say, one hundred years prior. And yet, with the right to keep and bear arms, they recognized and provided for the extreme circumstances under which the populace — the people — would have to avail itself of weapons of war. They were not a thoughtless, careless bunch. We ought to think a little more before we disregard their wisdom.
