By: T.F. Stern | Self-Educated American

Image M-15 DEF Defensive Sporting Rifle courtesy of Armalite

For openers…the never-ending assault on the 2nd Amendment has been going on for a very long time.  It could be said that those pushing this agenda are beyond patient with their eyes open for any opportunity to move the individual’s right to own and bear arms into some dusty history book, a memory of things past.

If you haven’t been paying attention then perhaps a look at the newly revised definition of Assault Rifle as found in Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary might be a bit troubling for some.

Assault Rifle: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire (bold type added for emphasis)

Does the word vague come to mind?  It should!  Keep in mind that sniper rifles used in the military are often blot action rather than fully automatic or even semi-automatic rifles.  So almost any rifle could be designated as looking like a military weapon later on down the road when the folks at Merriam-Webster alter the definition a little more to suit the communist agenda.

It wasn’t too long ago the New York Times came clean and admitted that 30 years ago the term Assault Weapon was a made-up term, created out of thin air so to speak to scare the average citizen into going along with a political movement to ban any weapon that looked scary.

“Handguns were used in more than 80 percent of murders each year, but gun control advocates had failed to interest enough of the public in a handgun ban. Handguns were the weapons most likely to kill you, but they were associated by the public with self-defense. (In 2008, the Supreme Court said there was a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.)

Banning sales of military-style weapons resonated with both legislators and the public: Civilians did not need to own guns designed for use in war zones.”

If you haven’t figured it out yet, folks on the left can’t stand the 2nd Amendment and want to take away an individual’s right to own and bear arms.  They are willing to go for a piece at a time if they can’t do it all at once.

The use of trigger words (sorry for the intended pun) … trigger words that categorized look-alike weapons available to the general public as if they were the same as military grade weapons along with the alarming use of the term ‘war zones’ was enough to get the bill passed, even if it expired under the sunset clause after 10 years; the propaganda had worked.

I mentioned that the term Assault Weapon was created out of thin air; but it happened long before the 1990s.  The first recorded use came from NAZI Germany of all places.

According to Wikipedia:

“The term assault rifle is generally attributed to Adolf Hitler, who for propaganda purposes used the German word “Sturmgewehr” (which translates to “storm rifle” or “assault rifle”), as the new name for the MP43, subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44 or StG 44.”

For whatever reason the name stuck, perhaps because “Sturmgewehr” sounded threatening or more macho; but come to think of it, most words in German come off sounding threatening…never mind; it got signed off on and so that’s where we got the term assault rifle, at least that’s the story.

Jumping back to present day efforts to deprive average citizens from owning any assault rifle, a term which we now understand to be nothing more than a figment of the lefts very successful imagination and efforts; from the Chicago Tribune, suburban Deerfield, just north of Chicago, has given “owners of assault weapons living in north suburban Deerfield have until June 13 to remove the firearms from within village limits…”

“The new ordinance prohibits the possession, sale and manufacturing of certain types of assault weapons and large capacity magazines within the village, according to the ordinance.  One change from the law as it was originally discussed exempts retired police officers from the ban, according to Village Manager Kent Street.

Violations carry a fine of between $250 and $1,000 per day, according to Matthew Rose, the village attorney.  He said the fine is levied each day until there is compliance.”

Wasn’t it George Washington who explained that the general public should not only be armed; but be armed to the same extent as their government?  Why would a retired police officer’s 2nd Amendment rights be superior to any other citizen’s?

The 2nd Amendment is the target and once an item is placed on the communist agenda it never stops being a goal to achieve.  If it takes a year, ten years or several generations you can count on the folks on the left to seize any crisis and use that crisis to its advantage.