Twisted Thinking of Anti-Gun Oregon Columnist

Writing for Oregon Live, Ronald Berkheimer, who thinks he knows what the meaning of the Second Amendment really is, participates in the typical tortuous thinking which makes all of his ilk look ignorant and lazy in their homework.

As many other have done, he attempts to place the meaning of the Second Amendment in a history he believes in. Supposedly those conditions negate the right to bear arms in some instances.
Here are the words of this sad, challenged soul:

There is an obvious difference between shotguns or hunting rifles and assault weapons. Even Wayne LaPierre has not claimed assault weapons have any other purpose but to kill human beings as quickly as possible. They should be available only to the nation's armed forces.

First of all, let's look at his projection of his thoughts on those of Wayne LaPierre. Since he says Wayne LaPierre has not made any claims that so-called assault weapons, and so that has to mean he also believes they are only made for the purpose of killing human beings, is as silly a conclusion I've ever heard in an attempt to defend any idea. It's ludicrous, disingenuous, and completely dishonest.

To impose those ideas on LaPierre is nothing more than an outright lie by Berkheimer. Some how he has evidently figured out how to know what someone thinks by their not saying anything about it. Great gift he thinks he has.

That's not the worse thing in his column though. It's the continual repeating of the term "assault weapon" which is the biggest lie. There are no such things as assault weapons. Period.

Now I'm making that statement coming from data related to rifle used in homicides in general in the United States. For example, in 2009, less then 350 rifles were used to murder people. That's in a country of over 300 million. It's statistically irrelevant (although not to the victims of course).

The point is what are called assault weapons aren't even a significant factor in the 10,000 or so homicide deaths coming from guns annually. The term is used in an attempt for that to be the base for starting to restrict gun ownership in America.

Anyone with a brain knows that automatic and semi-automatic guns are primarily used recreationally, and secondarily as protection. The major purpose could be protection, but I'm referring to usage, not intent here.

Also notice the term weapon. Now an rifle of this type isn't just a rifle, or even an assault rifle, it's now an assault weapon. The reason gun opponents are using that phrase is it eliminates the idea of recreational use, which is what is done with the guns by most people.

Again, people can buy them for protection, but unless a dangerous situation occurs, the only use they have is for practice and fun.

This data-challenged columnist, filled with his anti-gun rhetoric, looks completely silly in his article.