Charles C. W. Cooke, in a article yesterday in National Review, discusses the comments that both President Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney made during Wednesday’s debate, when a person in the audience wanted to know what the President planned to do about “assault weapons” in which he promised to ban in the 2008 election.

In all debates about “assault weapons” seldom is there ever a moment when anyone makes an attempt to explain just what an “assault weapon” is. As Cooke points out, using the term “assault weapon” for a reason to ban a perceived kind of gun is, “ignorant or disingenuous to point to automatic weapons.”

Cooke says:

“Assault weapon,” which is primarily a political term that has no real meaning outside of firearms legislation

It is this explanation which is direly lacking in conversations about so-called assault weapons bans. And as is pointed out in the article, the clever use of the term is to influence the mindset of the public. A legal weapon that is made to look “scary”, mostly perceived by the public as “scary” as they have been brainwashed through the media, including Hollywood, to recognize a scary looking gun, is now thought of as being an “assault weapon”.

I would suppose by definition a wet noodle could be an assault weapon if someone attacked another person with it. But cleverly and intentionally, the coined political term “assault weapon” has had the most influence on the perceptions of the public.

The article linked to was about how each of the candidates said nothing to explain anything and that should come as no surprise but will be taken by many to mean something it does not. However, I would like to point out something that President Obama said and also the reference made about Obama’s comment by the author.

Obama said:

And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap handguns (emboldening added).

The NRA and others in the media picked up on Obama’s comment of his wish to reinstate an assault weapons ban. I took the liberty to highlight what might be a more important statement, that “They’re using cheap handguns.” I read this to mean that President Obama is interested in attacking the manufacture and sale of “cheap handguns.” What’s a cheap handgun and who gets to decide? Where in the Second Amendment does it state that people have the right to keep and bear only expensive arms?

The author seemingly makes no attempt at offering a rebuttal to this comment. Cooke, after writing some about the difficulties a person would have in acquiring a fully automatic weapon, including the mind numbing cost of real automatic “assault” weapons, said this in response to Obama’s “cheap handgun” comment:

(This is not to mention that they must also be able to afford the weapon, which can cost $10,000 or more. As Obama correctly pointed out, “cheap handguns” are an awful lot more attractive to outlaws.)

So there you have it. Are we about to see another attempt at “reasonable” gun control by making it more difficult to buy handguns due to price? I don’t consider myself to be a criminal – although if they could read my mind I and millions more like me would have been locked up years ago – but if I wanted a gun to kill somebody, I don’t think price point purchasing would be much of a deterrent when a simple robbery would get me what I wanted. Think!