An assault weapon is, by definition, any weapon used in an assault. An assault weapon can therefore be anything used by one person illegally against another person or group of persons.
How this term “assault weapon” has evolved into the widely accepted pseudo legal definition for firearms is a curious and disturbing disuse and misuse of language.
Putting the distortion of language aside for the moment, I should point out that Connecticut has had an “assault weapon” ban in place since 1994. This is nothing new. The current highly charged debate is therefore really not about an “assault weapon” ban, it is about broadening the definition of what weapons might be used in an assault by someone who is, by definition, breaking the law by assaulting another.
Ultimately this definition could grow to include almost everything imaginable and not eliminate criminal or deviant behavior or assault. To follow this reasoning, one must agree that there can be no “assault weapon” without there first being an assault. It is therefore not the weapon, but the one using it illegally against another that we must punish.
We can manipulate language until the cows come home, but in the end, restrictive laws only punish the law abiding by taking away the freedoms and the liberties that have made America the “land of the free and the home of the brave”. Let us be brave, let us enforce our existing laws and punish the criminal use of weapons, while we honor with freedom, rather than criminalize via new laws, the legal law abiding owners of firearms in Connecticut.
We are fortunate to have been given by our founders a Constitution that guarantees us freedoms and liberties never before found on earth. We must cherish those freedoms and preserve them and our liberties for our children and their children. We must not allow them to be lost through distorted and manipulative language, and overcharged, albeit understandable, emotion. Let us not rush to judgement when the future of what is America is at stake.
Richard H. Woodford
New Milford