committed between 1985 and 1993 in her city, none was committednby a rifle of any kind, according to D.C. police. But factsnare irrelevant. For her, mere ownership of these guns by thenlaw-abiding causes death among the young. “[C]hildren are beingnkilled by the existence of tliese weapons,” she claimed.nIn a spectacularly goofy moment not rare in congressionalndebate. Democratic Representative Butler Derrick of SouthnCarolina’s embarrassed third district went so far as to predictndoom for the republic if the ban did not pass: “Mr. Chairman,nif this bill fails today, we are no longer a democracy.” So certainnwas he that the country could not endure another day with thenSecond Amendment intact, he said it again seconds later: “Mr.nSpeaker, if this bill does not pass, we are no longer a free nation.”nRepresentative Johnson, who thought the ban would protectnpeople from crime while failing to reduce crime, dreamed up anghoulish image: “I leave with tliis question: If a madman walksninto a fast food restaurant where your wife and children are eating,nwould you rather he have a six-shooter or a weapon thatncan wipe out every person in the building? That’s what this billnis about.”nThe obvious reply to this nonsense (and that is what it is, fornany madman can have two six-shooters, or multiple lO-roundnmagazines) is this: If a madman walks into a fast-food restaurantnintent on shooting everyone, would you rather that the patronsnbe armed or unarmed? Or how about this: If, in the middlenof a riot, the police abandon you and your family to face anmurderous mob of several hundred peoj^le, would you feel safernwith a small six-shooter or a semiautomatic with a 30-roundnmagazine?nNot all of the ignorance was silly; some of it was pathetic. Asnif the Second Amendment were about the right to some kindnof amusement, Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA) claimednthat “none [of the banned guns] are used for hunting or othernsporting purposes,” a claim made by several others, includingnRepresentative Louise Slaughter (D-NY) who said flatly thatnthe banned guns “are not used … for target shooting.” Thatnwill no doubt come as news to the hundreds of thousands ofngun owners who show up at target ranges every day wifli shooting-matchnmodels of AR-15’S and Ml-A’s. But just to keep allnthe bases covered, Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD) wentnfurther, implying no one should use them for target shooting:n”[T]he weapons which we are attempting to ban are designednfor military purposes and have no place in sport or recreationalnuse.”nIn general, the haters of gun sports seemed unaijle to decidenwhether the guns were used for target shooting. Typical werenthe comments of Representative Michael Castle (R-DE), whonsimply dismissed the subject because it was something he hadnnot personally noticed: “Well, we hear they are used in targetnpractice. I do not know of a lot of target practice, frankly, innwhich these are used.” Since he does not know anyone who usesnthese guns for target shooting, why should he care if they arenbanned?nDespite its extent, this Crand Canyon of ignorance wasneasily overshadowed by the dark clouds of lies and deceptionngenerated by the rights-stripping forces. The biggest lie, repeatednad nauseam, was that these guns are in general use bynthe military. Remarks by Representative Thomas Andrews (D-nME) were typical. He said the issue before Congress was “anvote to ban from our streets military assault weapons that werendesigned to kill on-rushing enemy troops in close combat.n20/CHRONICLESnnnkilling machines designed to kill large numbers of people innvery short j^eriods of time.” But no military on the face of thenglobe undertakes an assault by troops armed with semiautomaticnweapons. As every weapons manufacturer knows, thesensemiautomatic sporting versions, unlike the full-auto militarynweapons, were designed under the ever-watchful eyes of thenBATE, not for the military but for the consumer shooting sportsnmarket.nMr. Andrews and his pals simply lied.nRepresentative Schumer, the mastermind behind the gunnban in the House, confidently leaped beyond credibility withnhis claim that semiautomatics have no lawful uses: “[L]et usnnot fool anybody, we know that these guns are not used fornhunting, we know that these guns are not used for self-defense,nand we know in only very limited cases are they used for targetnshooting.” Korean shopowners in Los Angeles know full wellnhow useful they are for self-defense, as does anyone who sawnthese besieged people on television brandishing AR-15’s duringnriots when the government’s well-armed police abandoned thentaxpayers to looting, murdering mobs. It is questionable, to saynthe least, for policymakers or anyone else to suggest that manual-loadingnhunting rifles are somehow appropriate for self-defensenand target shooting, but that semiautomatics are not.nThe lie that semiautomatic rifles with largely cosmetic militarynaccessories have no “legitimate” use was a recurringntheme, accompanied by insults to gun owners. Typical was thenslur voiced by Representative John Porter (R-IL), wlio describednAmericans who own any of the banned weapons as felons plottingntheir next crime: “These are weajDons with no hunting,ns])orting, or other legitimate ]3urposes and for which there is nonreason for anyone to own except to aid in the commission of ancrime.”nFanning hatred by depicting gun owners as thugs was an importantntactic to lure support from undecided members ignorantnabout guns. Representative Klein, for example, inventednhis own statistic to legitimize his bigotry. “Ninety percent ofnthese weapons are in the hands of criminals,” he claimed. Hisn”statistic” is a pure fabrication that even the most rabid antigunnbigots do not claim.nMany members of Congress preferred direct attacks on gunnowners and their advocates. Representative Derrick, for example,nsmeared gun owners as well as his own colleagues as thenpawns of spidery gun manufacturers: “This debate is not beingncontrolled by our constituents, it is not being controlled by then80 percent out there [who support the ban]. It is being controllednby a minority here . . . that are again controlled by gunndealers and gun manufacturers primarily.” Since the leadershipnon both sides agreed to provide one hour for each side to presentnarguments. Derrick’s tantrum about who “controlled” thendebate made no sense. Its only purpose was to smear sportsmennwith outdated Marxist imagery about 19th-century armsnbarons.nOthers in Congress, as if in some schoolyard shouting match,nsmeared the National Rifle Association with juvenile epithets.nRepresentative Cardiss Collins (D-IL) called NRA membersn”John Wayne wannabes,” adding, “nobody really agrees withntheir views because Americans know that the NRA stands fornNot Really Aware, or in Need of a Reality Adjustment. Theynmust be stopped.” “We are tired of their manly mantras,” saidnRepresentative Norton. “Let’s stand up to the NRA,” echoednRepresentative Nita Lowey (D-NY). Representative Carolynn