"Assault rifle" comes from the German "sturmgewehr;" literally "storm rifle." Captured sturmgewehrs were the models for the Soviet "Avtomat Kalashnikova, 1947" or AK47, the best known firearm of its type. The key feature was the capability of fully automatic fire. True assault rifles are automatic weapons; in effect, machine guns.

Despite the near universal misuse of the term, there is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault rifle.

Access to all automatic weapons has been rigidly controlled in America since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Legally, no type of automatic weapon is readily available to civilians.

The 1994 "assault weapons ban" did not ban assault weapons. It dishonestly called semi-automatic hunting rifles like the AR15 Bushmaster "assault rifles" then regulated them based solely on their external resemblance to military firearms. "Assault rifle" sounds more threatening than "hunting rifle" and therefore is more useful as a scare tactic for pushing stringent gun control laws.

Semi-automatic weapons technology dates from the late 1800's. I own a semi-automatic shotgun manufactured in 1906.

But were I to attach a military-style pistol grip to that 107 year old firearm, it would become an assault weapon under the deceitful Clinton era law.

Post-Newtown, the usual suspects are demanding another deceitful "assault weapons ban." As Chicago mayor and former Obama aide Rahm Emanuel famously said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

The second amendment also is frequently misrepresented. Some say it defines not an individual right but the government's interest in maintaining a "militia." Yet the Bill of Rights exists only because several of the Founders believed that certain individual rights were inadequately protected from governmental infringement in the Constitution itself. For that reason, they wrote ten amendments designed to reinforce those rights. It is preposterous to claim that one of the ten was actually meant as a guarantee of government power.

In any event, the Supreme Court held in District of Columbia, et al vs Heller (2008) that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia."

Critics indignantly ask why anyone "needs" certain types of firearms. Perhaps they should ask the Korean shop owners whose stores were not burned or looted during the 1992 Los Angeles riots whether they needed the weapons with which they protected their lives and property when the police were nowhere to be found. Besides, it's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. No law-abiding citizen should have to explain to anyone why he wishes to exercise his constitutional rights.

The NRA's call for putting policemen into schools incredibly has been met with derision. Yet many schools already have armed guards. The concept is hardly extraordinary. Whether using policemen or private security guards or school staff members with concealed carry permits, the goal is to lessen the likelihood of some lunatic gunning down more children in yet another "gun free zone."

"Gun free zone?" More like "target rich environment." Who seriously believes that signs prevent criminals from committing crimes? Wayne LaPierre was right: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." That is why mass shootings don't happen at gun shows or NRA rallies. Those places most assuredly are not gun free zones and the bad guys know it.

Also, there is no "gun show loophole." People who buy from gun show dealers go through the same processes as those who buy in gun stores. Yes, certain private transactions are unregulated. I could sell one of my guns to my neighbor without a background check. But that is unrelated to gun shows and, if a loophole at all, it is a very small one indeed.

Law-abiding citizens do not need gun control laws. Criminals simply ignore them. More restrictive gun control does nothing but empower the very people most likely to misuse guns.