In his current constituent response about the gun-control discussion and legislative proposals, Sen. Angus King says he has serious reservations about limiting “assault weapons” as there is “too much emphasis on the cosmetic appearance of particular firearms rather than their actual functionality.”

A carefully presented NRA tutorial is being circulated among pro-gun control folks about the “assault weapon” misnomer. It’s real intent, though, is to say that if you can’t distinguish an “assault weapon” by definition, then your case for limiting anything is questionable.

The gun control effort is not about cosmetics nor technical definitions of weaponry and does not seek to obliterate anyone’s Second Amendment rights.

This so-called “assault” on gun owner’s rights is not a high-capacity, rapid-fire onslaught against all guns nor their owners. It is, however, a limited capacity onslaught where the outcome will be a lessening of deaths.

It’s just common sense: Less ammo power equals fewer deaths.

The Bushmaster’s cosmetics are fine and handguns are handy, but high-capacity magazines should be taken off the shelf.

If people think they need to have a firearm that can do so much damage in such a short period of time, their own mental “clarity” might be questioned in the gun owner screenings that some anti-control lobbyists say they’d support.

My sense, however, is that when they see these particulars, their support will quickly wane. If you think limiting guns is difficult, wait until you try to qualify someone’s mental health.

Of the approaches being aired toward lessening gun deaths, many have merit, but “cosmetics” is not the issue. Magazine capacities are the issue and King needs to stop diverting the discussion with “cosmetics.” It’s wasting precious time.

Will Brown


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or to participate in the conversation. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.