Senator Warner dumps gun owners

Ten years ago, Bill Clinton and his anti-gun friends convinced Congress to ban certain legal guns simply because they looked like military weapons. The politicians called them "assault weapons" because they resembled M-16s or AK-47s. The truth is that they weren’t automatic machine guns like the M-16 or the AK, which fire bullets for as long as you hold the trigger down.

Instead, these banned guns actually functioned the same way as your dad’s old hunting rifle – just one bullet was fired each time you pulled the trigger. These so-called "assault weapons" were used legitimately for hunting, self-defense, recreational target shooting and marksmanship competitions.

The "assault weapons" ban is set to expire September 13, but thanks to the help of U.S. Senator John Warner (R-Va.), a bill extending this law for at least another 10 years was introduced to Congress this month. The wise old Republican senator has bought into the Democrat hype. He joins the ultra-liberal ilk of bill sponsor Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to co-sponsor Senate Bill 2498.

Now, you may ask, "What person in his right mind needs to own an assault weapon for hunting or personal protection?"

That is not the point.

If you only ban products because of their cosmetic appearance, then eventually we will ban sports cars that look too fast, fattening foods that look too delicious or hammers that look too sturdy. And we will justify it because all those objects have killed people when they were in the wrong hands.

There is a slippery slope that happens with governments and guns. It has been shown throughout history that once a right is taken away by government, it is seldom, if ever, restored.

And when government has been successful at limiting one right, such as your right to own guns, it’s that much easier to limit others, such as freedom of speech or freedom of religion. If you can be convinced that it’s okay to tamper with one of your rights, then you have no leg to stand on when you try to argue that they shouldn’t tamper with others.

To prove my slippery slope, just listen to the words of the ban sponsor, Sen. Feinstein, as she said to the Associated Press in November 1993, "Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe," and on CBS’s "60 Minutes" in February 1995 after her first ban passed: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban [on all guns], picking up every one of them – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in’ – I would have done it."

Founding Father George Mason said, "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effective way to enslave them…" History shows us time and time again that one of the first steps to the rise of a dictatorship is the banning of privately-owned firearms.

In a stock letter to a constituent on the proposed ban, Sen. Warner said, "As a gun owner and hunter… I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment."

If that’s true, then what part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" doesn’t he understand? "Shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed." It doesn’t say, "shall not be infringed, except in the case of…."

In 1994, when the original gun ban was voted on, Sen. Warner voted against it. He has since changed his mind, citing U. S. Justice Department data showing that the proportion of these banned guns traced to crimes dropped by 65 percent in the last 10 years. What he doesn’t cite are police reports and federal surveys showing that these banned guns were used in only 1 to 2 percent of violent crimes.

This is certainly not the "epidemic" of crime that Sen. Warner’s rhetoric would lead you to believe was happening when he wrote to a constituent, "Unless Congress and the President act [to renew the ban] … weapons like UZIs and AK-47s … will fall into the hands of criminals who lurk in our neighborhoods."

Remember that I said these banned guns function the same way as your dad’s old hunting rifle: You get one bullet with one pull of the trigger. How is that a "weapon of war"? How is that "devised to kill a large number of people in the shortest amount of time"?

The politicians want you to think that these are fully automatic machine guns simply because they look like them, and they are willing to lie to you to get you to believe it. Machine guns have been essentially banned (except for a very few licensed users) since 1934.

How could a politician who is so powerful in Washington, who chairs the prestigious Senate Armed Services Committee, and who keeps getting re-elected by the people of Virginia, be so ignorant of the facts? Either he is ignorant of the facts, or worse, he is pandering to the polls. Perhaps he has looked past the Bill of Rights and on to his next election.

Well, then perhaps the people of Virginia should look past him and on to a new candidate in the 2008 Senate race.