Ohio – -(Ammoland.com)- Democrats and RINOs smile and say, “We don't want to take away your guns. We just want common sense gun laws to keep you safe.” Hey, is it raining, or are you just peeing in my ear?
Ohio Democrat Senator Michael Skindell introduced SB 260 earlier this year in hopes that the school mass shooting in Parkland, Florida would be the juice that pushes it over the finish line, unlike a similar bill of his that tanked in 2013. I suppose no one can accuse him of letting a tragedy go to waste.
“These are weapons of war. That's what they were designed for and that's where they should remain”, said Skindell.
Skindell's quote above is another lie in order to support the first lie told by “progressives” that they don't want to take away our guns. For just how many of us own “weapons of war”?
Indeed, let's see how many from his own bill, SB 260:
“(D) As used in this section, “assault weapon” means an automatic firearm that has not been rendered permanently inoperable, a semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine with the capacity to accept ten or more cartridges, and a semi-automatic firearm with a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept ten or more cartridges.”
He's not stupid. Look carefully how this is deliberately worded and think about it. ALL semi-automatic firearms that are capable of accepting ammo magazines would be on the ban list, because there is NO semi-automatic firearm with the ability to limit a detachable magazine's capacity. A detachable magazine's length cannot be limited by any current design of a semi-automatic firearm. It goes in the gun, and whatever wants can stick out below.
He could have worded his bill to ban ammo magazines themselves that hold more than ten rounds (that would still be an unacceptable infringement), but he is using the definition above to ban firearms, by redefining common semi-automatic pistols and rifles as “assault weapons”. That means your Glock would be banned, your Ruger would be banned, your Beretta would be banned, etc.
His convenient “weapons of war” definition, crafted by him, would apply to everything citizens possess, except for revolvers, pump shotguns, bolt action rifles, and rifles that do not accept detachable magazines. Hey, that's starting to sound like an Australian and British type of gun ban.
Perhaps Sen. Skindell would like us to go back to the glorious Redcoat days of flintlock rifles, eh?
The thing is, even the AR-15 (Armalite Rifle) is not a “weapon of war”. Weapons of war are select-fire weapons that can fire full-auto. The AR-15 is not capable of that. If firearms must be lied about to get your bill passed, then something is wrong with the bill.
Should this bill pass (fortunately, the chances of that are slim to none thanks to Ohio freedom loving citizens), if you decide you'd rather keep your legally purchased firearms in Ohio, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, you'd be guilty of a FELONY. That's right, years locked away behind bars like a caged and dangerous animal, away from your family, no longer able to provide for and protect them.
If free American citizens do not deserve this kind of treatment, what kind of person does that make Senator Skindell and those like him? I'd say rather vile, evil ones.
“Whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of unlawful possession of an assault weapon, a felony of the fifth degree.”
It took only a minority of Colonists to overthrow their British overlords and establish liberty. Many, unfortunately, were of Skindell's ilk. After the Revolutionary War some of those British loyalists fled to Britain and some to Canada (no wonder Canada is a “progressive” swamp).
When our inalienable rights, and our freedom bought by precious American blood is so viciously assaulted by those such as Skindell, one can only pleasantly daydream where those like him will flee to one day if the “Spirit of '76” should ever grace us again.
About Phillip Evans: