by Robert M. Traxler

The Orlando terrorist attack has renewed the call for the elimination of weapons of war. Let us put aside the Second Amendment for a time, an amendment that is as sacred as the First Amendment, and look at weapons of war.

We want to ban weapons of war, fine, but what is a weapon of war? The longest-lasting and historically the most effective weapon is the spear. Indeed, the rifle with a bayonet fixed is a spear; as far as history is concerned, the gun powder weapons are very new. Any long, thin, pointed object could be a spear; a fence post, rebar, stakes, or a broom handle could be a spear.

The assault weapons ban that was supposed to ban entire classes of weapons and make us all safe just plain did not work. One of the main reasons the assault weapons ban failed is that it was written by folks who did not know what end of the firearm the bullet exited from.

A semi-automatic weapon was allowed, one that fired 10 or 20 rounds as fast as you could pull the trigger, but a World War I five shot bolt action 1903 Springfield painted black was banned. Things that were important to the assault weapons ban were, among others, the color of the weapon and if it had a bayonet stud or not. Heard about a lot of drive-by bayonetings? Lots of convenience stores robbed at bayonet point?

For the life of me, I cannot figure out how a black or green colored polymer stocked weapon is more lethal than one with a natural wood stock. Rifles and shotguns with a pistol grip added were a portion of the ban, even though they did nothing to enhance the cyclic rate of fire of a weapon or the lethality, but they looked dangerous. Folks, you cannot make this stupid stuff up.

The rock is a weapon of war; slingers slinging rocks were extremely effective in Alexander the Great’s Macedonian Army. At the battle of Agincourt, the English long bow was devastating but just as effective was a short bladed knife (similar to a paring knife) used to kill the unhorsed French fully armored knights who were stuck in the mud. Is It past time we ban all kitchen knives and rocks for the good of all?

Banning weapons of war sure sounds good and it makes a good mantra, but it is an unenlightened statement. Two common cleaning and laundry chemicals we all have now in our homes mixed together produce a weapon of war used to kill tens of thousands in WWI. Time to ban cleaning products?

All firearms are weapons of war; a black powder rifle capable of firing at most three rounds per minute is a weapon of war. The bow and arrow of all types are weapons of war; all edged weapons like axes, knives and machetes are weapons of war. Hammers were used effectively for centuries in warfare, as were clubs; are we talking about banning golf clubs and baseball bats?

OK, I know what the anti-gun folks are trying to do and it is not to ban golf clubs, but phrases like “ban all weapons of war” are asinine and overly broad, and give the folks who wish to control every aspect of our lives a blank check, one that they get to fill in the amount of our freedoms lost.

No one will ever be able to ban all weapons and no attempt to ban weapons would be effective, but the gun grabbers would be happy to have laws like we find in the safe non-violent city of Chicago. Gun laws like we find in France that were so effective in stopping terrorism in Paris. Islamic terror groups have access to enough AK 47s (110 million) that placed end to end would reach half way to the moon.

Banning “weapons of war” would be unconstitutional, but worse it would be stupid, and not make us safer.

It is past time for our friends on the left to stop saying completely politically correct but industrially strength stupid things like we need to ban all “weapons of war.” Ban all weapons of war is like saying “common sense gun control,” a blank check written on your freedoms.

Words matter, laws matter, the Constitution matters. Giving the left-wing socialist self-proclaimed elite an open warrant to control even more of our everyday lives is a disastrous and very bad idea.