Why exactly do “liberals” fear honest citizens possessing modern firearms? What type of firearm should I own? The US Government spent time and resources to make me proficient with an M14 semiautomatic rifle firing the .308 caliber bullet, a very common target and hunting cartridge. I am also proficient with an M16 that fires a .223 caliber, a very reasonable varmint cartridge, suitable for smaller game. If I intend to acquire a weapon, why shouldn’t I get a civilian version (semiautomatic only) of one of these excellent rifles?

Why should I have to get something unfamiliar, even alien, not to mention obsolete? Whether hunting for game, protecting my family and property, aiding a neighbor, deputized into a sheriff’s posse, or called up by the Guard or Reserve for some emergency, why would I want anything else?

In a previous column, “Maze of Gun Laws Not the Problem”, I wrote, “But facts don’t matter to the antigun crowd since the issue is really about eliminating guns.” I explained that the very phrase “Assault Weapon” is meaninglessly vague and that a limit on magazine capacity is a canard since any magazine-fed weapon can accept a still longer magazine and so ALL magazine-fed weapons become subject to the ban.

Well, now the February 16 Rolla Daily News reported that Missouri Representative Rory Ellinger (D-St. Louis) has introduced a bill to ban “assault weapons”.

Representative Ellinger (D) claims to want a dialogue on safety. “I am serious about some kind of control of weaponry. I am a realist, however, and am willing to accept some compromise.” Oh? Representative Ellinger (D) doesn’t even consider some sort of lawful buy-back with fair compensation. No, he simply demands that all of these privately owned firearms and accessories be disposed of, destroyed or given up to authorities.

Anyone failing to comply becomes a felon, subject to up to seven years imprisonment. Some compromise!

The article summarizes, “Ellinger said that his measure only targets “military-style” weapons and doesn’t include handguns or hunting rifles.” A bill cosponsor, Representative Jill Schupp (D), added, “On a personal level I don’t understand the need for high capacity semi-automatic rifles.”

Notice the pattern. It starts with the proposition that “the right to keep and bear arms” is limited to only hunting rifles and handguns and then focuses on “assault weapons”, but then expands to “military-style”, and finally, “semi-automatic rifles”. So I went online and looked up the actual House Bill No. 545 for its definition of “assault weapon”.

As I expected, there is no specified limit to the detachable magazine, as I’ve contended all along.

Pistol grip stocks allow for a comfortable steady hold. Common features like universal accessory mounts for scopes and bipods (e.g. Picatinny rails) are also capable of accepting forward grips. Folding stocks are very convenient for the long treks in the wilderness and for stowage in vehicles and luggage while telescoping stocks are also adjustable for various size shooters and for various shooting positions. Since the 1890s, most all modern rifles and carbines have hand-guards that partially cover or shroud the hot barrels. These are all common practical features of modern firearms, but because the military also adopted these civilian-developed features, the anti-gun crowd demands they be banned.

That’s just about rifles. There’s plenty more to note in this bill. For brevity, I’ll highlight only a few points:

Any pistol that is capable of accepting [here it is again] a magazine of more than 10 rounds is banned. Any magazine pistol with an under-barrel accessory rail [or even a grip-friendly trigger guard] is banned. Any pistol with the magazine outside the grip [e.g. the classic collectable Model 1895 Mauser “Broomhandle”] is banned. Every shotgun with over 5 rounds capacity is banned. Every semiautomatic shotgun with a detachable magazine [any size] is banned.

Everything about this bill is dishonest, just like the charlatans who submitted it.

But most chilling of all, the RDN article ends by mentioning a related but unspecified bill: “One Democrat has filed a bill that would require parents to notify their child’s school if they own a firearm”. And what might the school do with such information? I suggest that it will pressure the child anti-gun propaganda. Likely it will it punish the child academically and socially, making the child a pariah for being the offspring of “uncivilized” parents? It will assuredly “flag” the child as a potential threat, to receive special observation and screening upon daily arrival, perhaps even a pat-down before entering a school bus. The potential for torment is endless.

We might be complacent that our local schools have enough common sense to not take part, but once a law is passed, the stage is set for new outrages. Schools can be pressured to comply through government sanctions.

Funds, grants and scholarships can be withheld, certification and accreditation canceled, sporting leagues and conferences dissolved; the tools of coercion are endless.

Don’t be fooled into thinking that this is a “dialogue”. The liberal anti-gun movement wants us all disarmed. Given the chance, they will seize our property, they will put us in jail, and they will not hesitate to get at us through our children.

It’s all right here in the paper!

Chester Kojro

Rolla, MO