Piers Morgan is a Brit, and British firearms laws are antiquated and severe. Apparently the Brits have no
right to effective self-protection. The Brits have a very high incidence of assaults by
knife, which (in the
plainly-spoken English language) makes the knife an "assault weapon".
Anything used as a "weapon" to commit an "assault" is a de facto "assault weapon". From the UK's
Daily Mail newspaper (Jul 17, 2008):
More than 350 people are the victim of knife assaults every day in England and Wales, the latest crime figures have revealed.
Last night a teenager in Lambeth, London, became the latest victim of the stabbing epidemic, dying in hospital after a frenzied attack.
Almost 130,000 attacks involved knives last year - equivalent to one every four minutes - according to the annual British Crime Survey.
This figure does not include the tens of thousands of assaults against under-16s. However, unlike the police records published yesterday, it does include crimes which are not reported to the authorities.
The police data revealed 22,000 serious knife assaults - including 231 attempted murders - were reported to the police last year.
There were also almost 14,000 reported robberies and more than 8,000 woundings.
Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...insist-crime-rates-falling.html#ixzz2HbQYmKlp
I contend that anything capable of being held or controlled by a human being, and thrust, thrown, swung, or used to damage or penetrate the human body - according to the reasoning of the left-wingers - is a potential (and in most cases
proven by the manner in which it has been used) "assault weapon". I present for your consideration: the assault ashtray, the assault golf club, the assault automobile, the assault baseball bat, the assault arrow, the assault pencil, the assault glass bottle, etc., etc., ad infinitum. Some of our nut jobs have drowned their children, so we must also ban water!
Criminal acts - such as assault and murder - are perpetrated by
people, not by the
tool (a term also describing Piers Morgan) they choose to commit those crimes against persons. People are resourceful and creative, tools are inert. A person dedicated to committing an unlawful act will find some means of accomplishing that act... even if the odds are
against his/her success. In the case of the Newton, Connecticut shooting, Adam Lanza was known to be a deeply troubled individual. I would propose that anyone sharing a domicile with - or permitting entrance to that domicile by - a person known to be unstable, and who does not secure weapons of any and all kinds from access by that person, be charged as an accessory (
perhaps even as a principal) to any crimes in which that unstable person uses said weapons.
Piers used the phrase "don't
need an AR-15", and he emphasized the word "need". The ability to possess and use an AR-15 is not one based upon "need"... it is our
right. However, with that right comes a concomitant
responsibility, to which most (I
assume all of us in this forum) people understand and comply, even though that responsibility has not been codified by legislative mandate. It is the responsibility to insure that
our firearms are secured against ease of access by individuals who are barred by law, or otherwise not authorized by the owner, from gaining access to firearms. Cabled action locks are easily defeated, but they
seem to meet the BATFE requirement (since they are supplied with all new firearms purchases)... but, they are not a suitable substitute for a good, solid
"gun safe" (which will
not reject other defensive tools).
IMHO, Joshua Boston did a
very good job of thwarting Piers Morgan's lame attempt to
marginalize our rights!
Pax...
