Walz’s Weapons of War
While calling for a ban on “assault weapons,” VP candidate Tim Walz claims “we can make sure that those weapons of war that I carried in war is the only place where those weapons are at.”
IN FACT, Walz never served in a combat zone, and the “assault weapons” he wants to ban are not “weapons of war” but common semi-automatic guns used for home-defense and hunting. Here are the key facts:
- National Guard records show that Walz never deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other combat zone.
- The defining feature of firearms commonly used in war is that they are automatic, which means they can fire multiple bullets with a single pull of the trigger.
- With strict exceptions, federal law has generally banned civilians from possessing automatic firearms — including machine guns and assault rifles — since 1986.
- Two years after automatic firearms were banned, progressives moved to also ban certain semi-automatic guns by calling them “assault weapons,” a phrase that sounds like “assault rifles” — the most common type of firearm used by military forces and terrorists.
- A leading gun control activist wrote in 1988 that their strategy to ban “assault weapons” would take advantage of the “public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic” guns.
- After receiving multiple “A” ratings from the NRA as a U.S. Congressman, Walz announced that he wanted to ban “assault weapons” when he ran for governor of Minnesota in 2018 and has since received multiple “F” ratings from the NRA.
- The “assault weapons” that Walz, Harris, and other Democrats are seeking to ban are popular firearms used for home-defense and hunting.
- The “assault weapons” that Walz, Harris, and other Democrats call “weapons of war” are not weapons of war but semi-automatic guns that can fire only one bullet with each pull of a trigger.
- A 1994 federal law — supported mainly by Democrats — banned “assault weapons” and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds through 2004.
- Since that ban expired, Democrat politicians, journalists, and “fact checkers” have used phony statistics to claim that the ban worked, when in reality, credible comprehensive data shows nothing of the sort.