An educated public will reject SAFE Act

Considering that those who drafted the SAFE Act are proponents of gun control, one would think that the significant power differences of various cartridge calibers would have been factored into the verbiage when defining an “assault weapon,” in an attempt to add some substantial credibility to their cause. Yet there is none. Why?

First, the drafters are simply not informed enough to make sensible legislation. Under the SAFE Act, a semiautomatic rifle with conventional stock firing a high-velocity center-fire round is fine, but a semiautomatic .22LR rimfire that you use to go plinking pop cans or that a 12-year-old Boy Scout uses to earn his merit badge may not be if it has a certain military look to it.

Second, some may be informed, but wish to complete their political agenda. In order to successfully sell the idea of a good gun versus a bad gun to an uninformed public, one must utilize talking points based on appearances in the anticipation that the public will incorrectly associate an actual “weapon of war” with something that resembles a “weapon of war.” A much-intended consequence of this phenomenon is that it allows the scope of “bad guns” to be much wider, hence more firearms removed from society by attrition. Remember, per the SAFE Act, when you die, you forcefully bequeath these types of .22 “assault” plinkers to the state.

The fact is that the only war a .22LR is capable of fighting is one against squirrels and rabbits. I firmly believe that most who possess a rudimentary level of understanding of various firearm types and who take the time to actually read what the SAFE Act ultimately does will soon come to realize the facade it represents, one enlightening detail at a time.

Chris Thiel

North Tonawanda