Not that you need it, but for clarification, a “wastrel” is a good-for-nothing person. Or, in other words, someone who would say the following:
“I can conceive of no legitimate reason that any citizen should need to own or use a semiautomatic assault weapon,” — Rep. Lisa Subeck, co-sponsor of a Wisconsin Assembly bill that would ban many widely popular and commonly owned modern sporting rifles.
That’s correct. Rep. Subeck is a wastrel. As are her cohorts, Reps. Terese Berceau, Melissa Sargent and Chris Taylor, all of whom also supported the confiscatory gun bill that could, if passed, turn many law-abiding gun owners into felons.
A portion of the official Analysis of the bill reads as follows:
This bill bans the transportation, purchase, possession, or transfer of a semiautomatic assault weapon and specifically defines “assault weapon” for the purpose of the ban. Under the bill, whoever transports, purchases, possesses, or transfers a semiautomatic assault weapon is guilty of a felony and may be fined up to $10,000, sentenced to a term of imprisonment of up to six years, or both.
Yes. You read that correctly. Citizens who own these “assault weapons” would have really two choices were the legislation to become law: 1. Get rid of the prohibited firearm (Turn it over to the government, render it permanently inoperable or sell it out of state) or 2. Maintain possession of the prohibited firearm and run the risk of becoming a felon.
It’s crazy. But, hey, according to the Wisconsin wastrels, it’s all part of keeping the public safe.
“Wisconsin families want to know that they and their children are safe whether they are home, at school, at work, or out in the community,” said Rep. Subeck, in a press release. “This bill is one of several critical reforms needed to eliminate gun violence in our state.”
What Subeck fails to realize (or maybe simply ignores) is that there are millions of people who believe that “safety” is a term that refers to one’s preparedness to confront and eliminate a threat. As such, there are certain tools, aka firearms, that make one — depending on one’s situation — optimally safe.
By gutting one’s right to keep and bear arms and limiting one’s right to choose the best tool for the job, Subeck is actually (and ironically) making the public less safe and more vulnerable to the miscreants, thugs, and drug dealers who refuse to obey the gun laws in the first place.
It sorta goes without saying, but Subeck’s bill makes the fatal mistake that all gun control laws make in that it focuses on the hardware and not the individuals pulling the trigger. The goal ought to be to eliminate the perpetrators of violence, not the objects and tools so many Americans use to protect themselves from evildoers.
And as an aside, I can conceive of several legitimate reasons for one to have a modern sporting rifle:
Call it democracy in action or the collective wrath of the gun community, but Subeck and her cohorts have decided to reassess their plan to ban modern sporting rifles in Wisconsin.
“After receiving feedback from some of our colleagues regarding the circulation of a preliminary draft banning semiautomatic assault weapons, the other authors of the bill and I have determined that we will work with the Legislative Reference Bureau to make some revisions to the draft bill to address some concerns that have been raised,” Subeck wrote this week.
“While LRB 3635 was not intended to impair Wisconsin’s rich hunting heritage and those who annually participate in it, our state does need to have a serious and meaningful conversation about gun violence,” she wrote. “We will be working with the Legislative Reference Bureau, Legislative Council, and others to ensure that a future bill draft corrects any drafting errors and unintended oversights to ensure more consistency with our current hunting and sporting regulations.”
Chalk that up as another victory for gun owners and the 2A!