As promised, I'm going to talk about Congress practically wetting themselves over trying to hurry up and act like they're doing something in wake of what went on in Newton, Connecticut last Friday. Congress thinks (I realize that's an oxymoron, but let's just move on) that we need a ban on assault weapons because the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Good idea, Congress. Now, could you please tell me how that is going to help? Not following this line of questioning? Allow me to explain.
First of all, if any member of Congress could actually define what an "assault weapon" is, I would be surprised. And that is because a) the majority of the members of Congress have their heads up their arse and have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, and b) it's ridiculously defined by the laws that attempt to define it. For example, here in California, there are particular types of rifles that are legal to own. However, if I put a pistol grip on one of those rifles, it then becomes classified as an "assault weapon" and is no longer legal. Because of the grip. The gun itself (you know, the shooty part) is exactly the same as it was before the pistol grip was applied. If that sounds stupid, that's because it is. But that's what we're working with here in terms of defining the object. It's so ambiguous that I don't see how any sort of a ban is going to do any good.
Second of all, let me give you a brief history of mass shootings in America over the past 13 years. There have been 21 massacres that killed 183 people (that includes those lunatics that shot a bunch of other people and then offed themselves because they were spineless cowards). Of those 21 separate incidents, do you know how many involved an actual "assault weapon"? One. Now, those figures don't include Friday's tragedy. Do you know how many of that gunman's weapons were "assault weapons"? None. So why in the world is Congress so up in arms to ban "assault weapons" when those weren't even the problem? Because it's easy. (And they're paste eating morons, but that's another blog post entirely.)
So there you have it. Congress wants to pass a ban on something that isn't concretely defined and isn't even being used in the most recent of massacres. They might as well ban peanut butter while they're at it because that's going to be about as effective as a ban on "assault weapons". (I hope they don't, though. I like peanut butter.) Still no talk about mental health from Congress, but plenty of talk about banning weapons that weren't involved in any shootings. OK, then. I can see where this is headed and that is absolutely nowhere. Tell you what...meet me back here the next time this happens with a weapon that isn't an "assault weapon" and we'll talk about what idiotic thing we can ban next. (Still hoping it's not peanut butter.) Because it will happen again. It's not a question of if, it's a question of when because it will.