RUSH: Los Angeles, this is Scott. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hey, Rush, thank you very much for taking my call.
RUSH: You bet.
CALLER: All right. I was thinking about the gun control, and isn’t this school in Connecticut the microcosm of the utopian society gun control? No teachers have guns. No students have guns. They basically have security. If a student sees another kid with a squirt gun or something like that, they’re supposed to go report it. You’ve created the gun-free zone.
RUSH: They did just upgrade the security procedures at the school, too.
RUSH: And didn’t this kid have to break a window or something? Didn’t he have to break glass to get in because he couldn’t get past the established admittance procedures so he had to break glass to get in there, break a window.
CALLER: Yeah, it sounded like he had to do above and beyond to get buzzed into that. So you had the perfect gun control — it’s just like a microcosm of what —
RUSH: You could say it was a miniature child prison.
CALLER: Yeah. Yeah. And Obama’s media is just spinning this like crazy.
RUSH: It’s not just Obama’s media. It’s Clinton’s media, and it’s Chuck Schumer’s media, and it’s Dianne Feinstein’s media, it’s the leftist media, who got nothing right —
RUSH: — on Friday. They got nothing right on this story.
CALLER: It’s interesting, Dianne Feinstein’s gonna start the next Congress with a gun bill. How about starting off with that budget you were supposed to pass four years ago?
RUSH: Yeah, spending.
RUSH: Do you think Dianne Feinstein even knows the difference between a semiautomatic and an automatic weapon?
CALLER: Well, they call ’em assault weapons. What weapon —
RUSH: Wait a minute. We had an Assault Weapons Ban.
RUSH: And it didn’t work. So we let it subside, and now she wants to reinstitute it again.
CALLER: It gives her something to do.
RUSH: Well, it didn’t work the first time. We had an Assault Weapons Ban. You know, that’s another illegitimate term.
RUSH: Tell me, Scott, are you a gun guy, do you know about them?
RUSH: All right, what is an assault weapon, as opposed to a pistol?
CALLER: I kind of see that every single weapon is an assault weapon, right?
RUSH: Exactly. But they’ve created this term assault weapon. It’s a bad weapon, as opposed to a good gun. What’s a good gun?
CALLER: A good gun is one where the Democrats take ’em away from us and give ’em to the Mexican drug cartels in the Fast and Furious program, Rush.
RUSH: A good gun is the one that hits the target.
RUSH: But, see, I’m in trouble for saying that.
CALLER: Don’t say it.
RUSH: A bad gun is one that doesn’t hit the target.
RUSH: But no they’ve created this — assault weapon and semiautomatic and automatic weapons.
CALLER: They listed a revolver now as a semiautomatic weapon, too.
CALLER: I think I saw something on that where they’re starting to classify a revolver as a semiautomatic.
RUSH: Well, maybe we should go through the definition of these terms again, because semiautomatic and automatic weapons — you know, people think an automatic weapon is one where you pull the trigger and multiple bullets fire. But that’s not right, is it?
CALLER: No, because you can break down what’s automatic. If it’s discharging the casing.
RUSH: Yeah, it’s discharging the casing and loading a new one, but it’s not firing multiple rounds.
CALLER: Right. Because some of your shotguns, like if you go skeet shooting you have to break the barrel and remove by your hand, those would be manual guns.
CALLER: But I’ve also got some where you shoot and it will discharge the casing automatically, being an automatic —
CALLER: — weapon.
RUSH: Well, these terms have popped up, and they’re part of the word, the terminology effort here to advance a particular political agenda. That would be fine if they were true, but the terms are misleading and inaccurate in how they describe these weapons. But of course the real big one is the assault rifle as opposed to the standard rifle, and the assault weapon. As you say, every weapon is an assault weapon, even a derringer would be. Scott, I appreciate the call.
RUSH: Let’s go through these gun terms just for the heck of it here, for what it might matter. “Assault weapon.” “Assault rifle.” There is no such thing. Go to a gun store and tell ’em you want an assault weapon, and the guy will look around and show you his entire inventory and say, “Pick one.” But there is nothing — no brand, no label — that identifies the weapon as an assault rifle or assault weapon.
There’s no such category.
It has been manufactured, invented, purely for political-agenda advancement reasons. The term “assault weapon” first began being used in the early 1990s by people opposed to the Second Amendment. There was legislation in 1994 that banned “assault weapons,” and they had a definition. What they did was simply repeat a bunch of cosmetic features. They talked about single-action, dual-action triggers and so forth.
It was all designed to impact the low-information citizen into believing that certain weapons are invented for the express purpose of mass murder, weapons you can buy. Now, there are weapons made for mass murder. Chemical weapons, biological weapons, tanks, missiles, rockets. But we’re not talking about that. This was a purely manufactured term, and guess what? Because it didn’t mean anything, because there was no way to enforce it without violating the Constitution the large, the Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004.
But guess who’s back and wants to reinstitute it? None other than Dianne Feinstein and Senator Joe Lieberman, who are calling now to renew the Assault Weapons Ban. Well, it must not-a done much good because they allowed it to expire in 2004. So, once again, we have another purely political move here being authored by DiFi. And only because it sounds like somebody cares. I realize I’m in the minority now, people that deal in facts and reality and not image and inertia.
I realize I’m peeing against the wind here.
But I still want you to know what the facts are about all this. Because we’re outnumbered by these low-information voters. In a situation like this, I guarantee you, the odds are we’re gonna have a majority say, “Yeah! Yeah! We need the Assault Weapons Ban,” not knowing what the hell they’re talking about because there is no such thing. Again, according to John Hinderaker at PowerLine.
AP reported, “Connecticut Gunman Had Hundreds of Rounds of Ammunition,” “enough to kill just about every student…” He “was carrying an arsenal of hundreds of rounds of especially deadly ammunition.” You see? “Especially deadly” hollow points. See, there are good bullets and bad bullets. This guy had the bad bullets. He had “enough to kill just about every student in the school if given enough time…”
But to anybody who knows what they’re dealing with or talking about, “hundreds of rounds” is actually a small quantity. It’s not the number of rounds that you have. It’s how you intend to use them. Same thing with the gun. It’s not how many guns you have; it’s how you intend to use them. Now, this kid used a Bushmaster rifle that was his mother’s. The Bushmaster is a “semiautomatic rifle.”
Pop quiz. I just explained it, but I just want to check. No wrong answer here. Snerdley, what is the defining characteristic of a “semiautomatic” weapon? I just announced it. You don’t know because you were screening calls, right? (interruption) You weren’t screening calls? You were listening? (interruption) Does not shoot multiple rounds! A semiautomatic fires one bullet at a time, and discharges the casing and auto-reloads the next one.
That’s all it does.
It does fire multiple rounds with one pull. A semiautomatic weapon fires one bullet at a time and puts another bullet into the chamber. It’s called an “assault rifle” to create the image that it is an instrument of mass death with one pull of a trigger. It’s a political invention. The whole term “assault rifle” is a political invention. Semiautomatic and automatic weapons, really there’s not much difference. One bullet at a time. You have to squeeze the trigger every time you want to fire a bullet.
Now, what made Adam Lanza stop? He stopped when somebody showed up and pointed a gun at him, and that’s when he killed himself. That is what happens in practically every instance like this. Once the shooter has a weapon pointed at him, he ends it. The Aurora, Colorado, shooter specifically chose a theater in a part of town where he knew nobody would be allowed to have one. He drove an extra distance to get to that particular theater. These people do make that calculation.
Just throw it in your hopper and let it matter as you will.
RUSH: It is interesting here, ladies and gentlemen, a number of reports — stick with me on this now — a number of reports say that Adam Lanza, the Connecticut shooter, only used two handguns, that the Bushmaster, the rifle, was found in the trunk of his car. Now, there are conflicting reports. As we said when the program began, nothing that was originally reported about this was true, other than the shooting taking place. None of the details. I mean, it’s striking how for three hours — well, at least an hour and a half on this program and hour and a half after, everything I told you turned out to be wrong. We were just passing it on from the networks as we got it.
Now, according to Reason magazine, the lapsed federal Assault Weapons Ban would not have stopped Lanza because it wouldn’t have made the Bushmaster illegal. I’ve got a picture of the Bushmaster rifle. It is a mean looking machine. I mean, it’s a serious, serious rifle. It’s a .223 caliber Bushmaster M4 carbine, and are you ready for this? It was legal under Connecticut’s Assault Weapons Ban. Connecticut has an Assault Weapons Ban which was similar to the federal law that expired in 2004. The configuration of the rifle used by Adam Lanza, which his mother purchased legally and possessed legally in Connecticut, wasn’t covered by the definition.
And again, I want to point out, Connecticut already has an Assault Weapons Ban. The gun was purchased legally. That’s how we know an Assault Weapons Ban would not have stopped Adam Lanza. We also know it wouldn’t have stopped him if it was illegal because he’s gonna be able to get some kind of a gun. Given the circumstances with his mother being a Prepper, preparing for the last days and survivalist and all the rest, and even at that, people who intend to use guns to commit crimes are gonna find a way to get them. That’s the whole point and the reason why gun control is flawed as a concept.
I want you to listen to Jay Carney, because I’ve had some e-mails. “What do you mean, Mr. Limbaugh? They’re not politicizing this. These are people that care deeply about the children of this nation.” I mean, I’ve had people really excoriate me in the e-mail for accusing the left of seeking to politicize the event. Some of you leftists, you want to maintain here that the Democrat Party has not sought to politicize this? It’s the first thing that came to their mind. The first thing that came to their mind was the hope that they could link this to a conservative. The second thing that came to their mind was how they could use it to advance their gun control agenda. And everything else that they’ve said and experienced, the emotions they felt, came last. Do not doubt me.
If people are going to commit murder, they will break gun laws. Does that not follow? If somebody’s going to commit murder, if they’ve already made that decision, they’re not gonna be stopped by a gun law or an Assault Weapons Ban or what have you. Thus the solution to this is not to be found in stricter laws. Laws are not made — this is another controversy. You know, wait ’til I say this. Ha. In the low-information country we live in today. I can’t wait for this. Laws are not made exclusively to alter behavior, ’cause there is no law that does.
We’ve had laws against robbing banks, laws against murder, laws against other kinds of stuff. Crimes are still committed, aren’t they? Okay, so what’s the purpose of the law then? Well, partially it is to establish a system of punishment, but is also society establishing its limits. It’s society establishing its morality. It’s a society establishing as a matter of law what’s right and what’s wrong and what’s good and what’s bad. And just because a law doesn’t deter activity doesn’t mean the law is worthless. Anyway, that’s a discussion for another time.