Second Amendment Foundation: The Great Assault Weapon Hoax
This is an extremely well written article (A Law Review Article) de-bunking the myth of "Assault Weapons". It has robust footnotes and can be used for educational purposes. His suggested "tactics" are worthy of consideration.
University of Dayton Law Review
Symposium, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,
vol. 20, no. 2, 1995: 557.
Posted for Educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please visit the local law library or obtain a back issue.
THE GREAT ASSAULT WEAPON HOAX
Joseph P. Tartaro*
The suggested changes in tactics for 2A supporters:
On the morning of September 13, 1994, President William Jefferson Clinton, surrounded by Vice President Gore, members of the Clinton Cabinet, members of both houses of Congress, the mayors of several major cities, and numerous supporters of the legislation among police administrators, signed into law the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
Passage of the bill did not come easily. It involved a combination of preventive and punishment initiatives, most of which were contentious to one group or another. Many civil libertarians opposed the classification of some sixty federal crimes as punishable by the death penalty. Fiscal conservatives denounced the proposed expenditure of over $30 billion which was not actually budgeted by the 103d Congress. Even some mayors and local police administrators demanded changes in the bill to permit them to spend money on equipment and training rather than additional patrol officers--one of the main justifications for the bill.
As long as the debate continues to be evidence against emotion, the pro-gun side can be expected to lose. It is impossible to argue facts while your opponent is arguing emotion. And if the debate is ever going to be won by the pro-gun side, new tactics are needed. Pro-gunners must exploit the emotional side of their argument. They must transform the debate into one in which emotion is pitted against emotion.
The anti-gun crowd have been exploiting victims for years; Sarah Brady is only one of many who have been enrolled by the anti-gunners and exploited to score emotional debating points.
It is time that the pro-gun side identify and counter this strategy by presenting its own victims, or would-be victims. They need to get greater exposure for the people who use firearms of all kinds for self-defense. The other arguments are superfluous and they are harder for the general public, or the media, to understand. But everyone understands and can empathize with the person who used a firearm, especially a semi-automatic military origin gun, to defend against looters during riots, hurricanes and other disasters, or to defend one's home against the sudden, violent and threatening invasion by easily identified "bad guys."
At the same time, there must be a major effort to educate the media and the lawmakers about what these guns they hate are all about. This is especially true with the media because the general public learns from the media.
One of the simplest ways to help others to understand the truth about these controversial firearms is to invite politicians, media reporters and editorial board members to demonstration shoots. They should be taught to fire the guns safely and to learn about the characteristics of as many of the targeted semi-automatics as possible. When feasible and legal, they should also have a demonstration of full auto and selective fire versions of the guns.