August 04, 2022
U.S. Rep. David Cicilline, D-Rhode Island, author of the "assault weapons" ban bill that has passed the Hours, knows less about firearms, ammunition and the U.S. Constitution than the average eight-year-old.
One of the best examples is U.S. Rep. David Cicilline, D-Rhode Island,
Likely the only thing more frustrating than laws that infringe directly on our Second Amendment rights is the fact that many of the people making those laws know less about firearms, ammunition and the U.S. Constitution than the average eight-year-old.
One of the best examples is U.S. Rep. David Cicilline, D-Rhode Island, who authored the so-called “assault weapons” ban that anti-gun Democrats forced through the U.S. House of Representatives last week.
As author of the bill, Cicilline got lots of face time at the Congressional hearing, and he used it to do what he and his fellow gun-ban advocates do best—grandstand and tell lies about things they don’t even try to understand.
Here’s a look at a few of the more egregious statements Cicilline made during the debate.
“These military style weapons were designed for the battlefield—for maximum efficiency when a soldier is engaged in combat. And the military features banned by this bill are added to make these guns more accurate, more controllable, more concealable, and more deadly—enabling killers to murder as many people as possible, as quickly as possible.”
Untrue. First, rifles designed for battle are fully automatic, while the semi-automatic rifles Cicilline wants to ban fire only one round with every pull of the trigger, just like semi-auto pistols and shotguns do. And the alleged “military” features that can cause your gun to be banned include the capacity to accept a detachable magazine (most semi-auto rifles do) in addition to only one of the following: a pistol grip (certainly not uniquely military), a forward grip (doesn’t make it any more “deadly”), an adjustable stock (why is it bad to be able to make your gun fit you correctly?), a grenade launcher, a barrel shroud, or a threaded barrel (I guess Cicilline doesn’t like the hearing protection afforded by suppressors).
“These weapons have no place in our communities. They turn our streets, our schools, our grocery stores, our movie theaters, and hospitals into bloody battlefield scenes, and they kill our children, our friends, and neighbors—and the police officers trying to protect them.”
Also, untrue. No firearm is able to kill any humans, whether children, friends, neighbors or police. Violent criminals—who Cicilline completely refuses to admit are most of the problem—often kill others by using firearms in commission of their murders, but the gun is simply a tool and cannot accomplish anything without a person—good or bad—operating it.
“The original assault weapons ban was in place from 1994 to 2004, and we have clear evidence that it was effective in reducing these killings.”
Also: “We know that the original assault weapons ban worked. We have to reinstate it before more innocent lives are lost.”
Also, patently false. First, according to the FBI, AR-style rifles are used in less than 2.5 percent of murders. Additionally, the Clinton Gun Ban back in the 1990s also banned many semi-automatic rifles by cosmetic features. A congressionally mandated study of that ban, which ran from 1994 to 2004, found that it had no measurable impact on crime.
The study concluded, “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best.” That being the case, any rise in mass shootings afterward cannot honestly be attributed to the ban sunsetting.
“Let me be clear: I respect the Second Amendment. But it’s not without limits.”
Are you kidding me?!! A look at Rep. Cicilline’s voting record (he has a 0 percent rating from the NRA and 100 percent from the Brady Campaign) proves he respects the Second Amendment about as much as I respect the 217 House members who voted for the sweeping gun ban last week.
As for the “not without limits” part, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban firearms that are “in common use.” Since the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) recently released a study showing nearly 25 million AR-style rifles under private ownership in the country … well, you crunch the numbers and see if that seems like “in common use” to you.
“Imagine if we clung to the desire to protect our children and our communities as tightly as some of my colleagues cling to their rifles.”
Rude and wrong. This is the lowest of low blows. By making asinine statements like this, Cicilline infers that those who understand and support the Second Amendment don’t care about protecting children and American communities. Of course, that’s idiocy. Those children and communities are our children and communities. We just understand that there is a better way to protect them than taking away the rights of the law-abiding in an effort to try to stop criminals, who don’t obey laws anyway.
In the end, we are forced to live with dozens of ignorant liars like Cicilline wielding the power to regulate our Second Amendment rights, regardless of what the Constitution says. The sooner we can vote Cicilline and 216 other freedom-hating lawmakers out of office, the better.
About the Author
Freelance writer and editor Mark Chesnut is the owner/editorial director at Red Setter Communications LLC. An avid hunter, shooter and political observer, he has been covering Second Amendment issues and politics on a near-daily basis for more than 20 years.