I had a conversation this evening with my wife (who is British) regarding the expiration of the "assault weapons" ban. I asked her what she thought was the problem that the ban was supposed to prevent. She essentially told me that the ban had prevented the sale of automatic weapons.

When I explained to her that automatic weapons had been banned in the United States since 1934, she asked me, "What makes them assault weapons, then?" I told her the criteria: removable magazine, and two or more of the following: bayonet lugs (give me a break); a pistol grip (try firing a rifle one-handed); a flash suppressor; a folding or telescopic stock (but the weapon must still be at least 26" long, even when the stock is folded/compressed; or a grenade launcher (give me a break).

She was shocked. She always thought that the "assault weapons ban" kept automtatic rifles off the streets. She never knew what the actual definition was.

And that's the way it works. The "assault weapons" ban proponents, synonymous with gun control proponents, lie to people to get them on their side, because the truth doesn't support their position. As sympathetic figures as Jim and Sarah Brady may be, they're lying to you.

The "assault weapons" ban was bad business. It's good that it expired.