'Constitutional' assault rifles are an assault on human intelligence

Naturalized U.S. citizen, Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez (who had earlier sent out a Koranic war text) thought he was riding a Paradise-bound bullet

Sporting a “load-bearing vest” crammed with multiple 30-round mags, he began his rampage at a Navy recruiting center in a Chattanooga strip mall—spraying it with a legally-obtained AK-47-style assault rifle. 

He subsequently drove to another Navy facility, where he slaughtered four Marines and a sailor-- then was killed in a gun battle with police.

 
Two long guns and a handgun were found in his possession. Another rifle turned up at his house
 
—About AK-47-style rifles: Large; high-powered; semi-automatic; repeatedly and automatically load and eject rounds; fire one round with each trigger pull.   
 
—Assault characteristics (in various forms of configuration): detachable mags; military-style grips; flash suppressors and/or collapsible/folding stocks.
 
—Their place:  Battlefields. 
 
—Their aim: Killing as many enemies with as many rounds in as little time as possible.
 
These supposedly  “civilian-friendly” firearms have undergone a military makeover, becoming assault rifles unsuited for general use.    Gun nutters insist that only fully-autos are assault level, while semi-autos   are  “tactical” or  “modern sporting rifles.”  
 
Total birdshot.   
 
History corner:  The term “assault rifle” was coined by Gun, Inc.  when redesigning its wares with  military  looks to  hook  gun goofs. Firearms dealer Phillip Peterson---author of the “Gun Digest Buyer’s Guide to Assault Weapons”—notes it was “first adopted by the manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearm owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.”
 
Time to ban them.
 
Don’t put it past the Supreme Court to do it.

While its Scalia-authored  “D.C. v. Heller” decision said handguns aren’t unconstitutional under the Second Amendment because they’re  “common use” self-defense weapons, UCLA law professor Adam Winkler says the Supremes would probably say assault rifles—like machineguns or shoulder-launched missiles—aren’t “common use” self-defense weapons, either –and, hence, aren’t Second Amendment sanctified.   Winkler adds how Scalia “favorably noted a 1939 Supreme Court case, ‘United States v. Miller,’ that permitted lawful limitations on the right to bear arms, which Scalia declared were ‘supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”  Scalia wrote that  “We . . . read ‘Miller’ to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.”

If gung-ho gunners insist assault rifles--with their military-mimicked overkill—aren’t  “dangerous and unusual,” call up James Holmes—convicted on 24 counts of first-degree murder for butchering 12 people in a Colorado movie theater.

Holmes’ arsenal included a .223-caliber AR-15 assault rifle (modeled after the U.S. military’s M-16), with a 100-round drum magazine.

Holmes was handed his verdict the same day Abdulazeez handed death to five U.S. service members with his AK-47 assault rifle (modeled after the U.S.S.R.  military’s AK-47), with high-capacity magazines.

Guns of a feather mass murder together.

What do you think?

--Steve Benson