By the way

Words have meaning.   At least they usually do.  Amidst the furor over "assault weapons" I present to you two rifles.  One is an assault rifle (by the popular definition) and one isn't.  Can you tell the difference?

If you said the second was the "assault rifle" you chose correctly.  The difference?  The first has the flash suppressor removed.  Full disclosure, technically they are both "assault rifles" because the threads are still on the barrel, allowing me to put the flash suppressor back on, but if I were to take a file to the threads, the rifle would, apparently, no longer be evil.

That's it.  They are both magazine fed, semi-automatic rifles.  They both fire the same .30 caliber round.  The thirty caliber rifle round has been around since the eighteen hundreds, the semi-automatic rifle likewise, the magazine fed rifle has been around and readily available since the 1920s.  The AR-15, a popular version of magazine fed, semi-automatic rifle has been around since the early 1970s.  So why the furor?

Well, for one they became popular.  It stands to reason that if a rifle is the most popular rifle, that rifle will also be used on occasion for evil acts.  Two, they look scary.  Seriously.  Look at that bottom picture and compare it to the top.  The top probably reminds you of hunting with your dad and your uncles in the winter; hot chocolate and cold wind nipping at your nose.  The bottom terrifies you.  Just kidding, of course.  They are the same rifle.

Those opposed to the ownership of guns are engaged in a decade long battle to ban guns.  Start with guns that the people will accept as banned "military style assault rifle" and then move on from there.  Inexpensive handguns (Saturday night special) because they are dangerous, expensive handguns (because who needs a Desert Eagle for home defense), "high capacity" meaning the number of rounds the gun came with from the factory.  Each restriction makes it more reasonable for the next to be passed.  "After all, we don't allow people to have ... so why would we allow them to have ...".  Don't be fooled, the ultimate goal of many of these groups is a ban on civilian ownership.

Meanwhile Antifa physically attacks conservatives who venture out to express their political opinions.  The left commits violence against us while attempting to disarm us.  What could possibly go wrong?

The dishonest attack on "assault rifles"

I was just walking through my house on the way to get some laundry and stopped to admire my AR-15.  It is a very good looking rifle in the form follows function mold.  Everything has a purpose and they all blend together well.

I wondered, as I walked by, why this particular rifle engenders such hatred by the anti-gun crowd and it occurred to me that it doesn't.  It is just the latest popular firearm that they can attack so they have adopted a strategy that works.  If there were no AR-15 or other "assault weapons" (a phrase I hate by the way, since it is meaningless and inaccurate as applied by the media and the anti-gunners) then they would be attacking some other aspect of firearms ownership.

Evidence?

The Gun Control Act of 1968.  Wasn't an assault rifle to be found unless you count surplus M-1 Garands being sold by the Civilian Marksmanship Program.

1972 Creation of the BATF to regulate and control firearms sales.  Still no assault weapons to be found.

During the 80s there was the fake "cop killer bullet" controversy, the fake "plastic gun" controversy, the "Saturday Night Special" ban, none of which were real issues.  Cop killer bullets weren't, plastic guns weren't, and the definition of Saturday Night Special basically meant "guns that poor people can afford to buy for protection. 

1990 Crime Control Act bans the manufacture and importation of "assault weapons", a phrase that came into use sometime in the 80s.  Interesting side note, according to Wikipedia, the only weapons ever referred to by the military as assault weapons were a grenade launcher and a rocket launcher.

Moving on, in 1997 the Brady Law severely restricted the purchase of handguns, in 1999 a bill requiring that a trigger lock be provided with every new firearm passed the Senate, in 2005 California bans sale of .50 caliber rifles.  None of these had anything to do with assault weapons (notice that I've gotten tired of including quotation marks, so you can fill those in in your head as you read).  Each of the three examples I've provided restricted non assault weapon firearms, either making them harder to get or more expensive (oh, in case you were wondering, a 50 caliber rifle used to cost about $6000 and weighs almost 30 pounds, so not the kind of thing that criminals are generally using to hold up liquor stores and shoot each other).

So when someone brings up the topic of "sensible" gun laws and wonders aloud why anyone "needs" an "assault weapon", you can just ignore them.  They were restricting your ability to own a firearm before the phrase assault weapon was even invented to describe a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine and other features that make it more comfortable or easier to shoot (you know, things like handgrips, adjustable length shoulder stocks, flash hiders, accessory rails), they haven't stopped trying to keep you from owning any other firearm simultaneously with their attack on assault weapons, and if assault weapons were to magically disappear tomorrow, their "sensible" legislation would still be pushed against every other gun you own.

Just thought you'd like to know.

Incoherence in court rulings

According to the 4th Circuit:

Actual military rifles used by actual armies in actual wars are not banned.

Case in point: M-1 Garand


Rifles resembling military rifles which have never been used by actual armies in actual wars can be banned.

Case in point: AR-15

The 4th Circuit ruled that the AR-15 was "like" the military M-16 and therefore not subject to protection under the Second Amendment.  They didn't extend that ruling to the M-1 Garand which actually was a military rifle, or the Winchester 1917, or the Enfield 1903, or the Sharps or Spencer carbines, or the ... well, you get it.  The only one that it is OK to ban is the one that has never been used by the military.


To clarify for those of you not familiar with guns, the M-1 Garand is a semi-automatic rifle which is reloaded using what is called an "en bloc clip".  It is a clip that holds six eight (thanks notClauswitz for the correction) rounds and is shoved into the top of the rifle.  Takes seconds to reload.  Semi-automatic means pull the trigger once, the rifle fires one bullet and is ready to fire the next time you pull the trigger.

The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle which is reloaded using what is called a "magazine".  It is a container that holds multiple rounds (depending on the size of the magazine) and is shoved into the bottom of the rifle.  Takes seconds to reload.  Semi-automatic in this case has the exact same meaning as it did in the previous paragraph.

So if you are not a gun person you might be confused as to why one is bad and one is good.  Well, if you are a gun person you might be equally confused.  The AR-15, however, can be make scary looking by adding accessories.  Do the accessories make the gun more deadly?  Nope.  Examples of things that make this rifle banned in some states include muzzle brake (designed to keep the rifle from having as much felt recoil), barrel shroud (that's the tubular thing around the barrel towards the front designed to keep you from burning yourself on the hot barrel since the stock on these rifles is not full length like the Garand), adjustable buttstock (designed to allow you to set the length of the rifle to whatever is most comfortable to you, the user), and pistol grip (designed to allow you to hold the rifle more securely while firing).  Oh, and aforementioned detachable magazine which, other than the availability of larger sizes is not much different than the en-bloc clip.

Can you take your Garand and put a modern military looking stock and all sorts of cool accessories on it?  Sure.

Does that change how it shoots, what it shoots, or how deadly it is?  Not in the slightest.  It now has an adjustable buttstock, a pistol grip, and a barrel shroud.  Is it banned as an assault weapon? Probably not because the en-bloc clip is not currently considered a detachable magazine even by legislators who get their panties in a bunch about "weapons of war".  Enough people put this stock on their rifles, however, and stand by for the hysteria.

Oh, and don't forget, less than 4% of all firearm homicides are carried out with any kind of rifle at all, let alone these "weapons of mass destruction" that you are always hearing about.   Almost three times as many people are killed by "hands, fists, feet, etc" under the "personal weapons" class.  This is not about safety, it is not about crime, it is about an irrational hatred of letting people possess the means of their own defense. 

Ignorant or fiendishly clever?

State Senator Ed Murray (Democrat - Washington state) has introduced Senate Bill 5737 which would, among other things, make it illegal to own a firearm that is threaded for a flash or noise suppressor. (You can be grandfathered if you already own one but otherwise, no importation, sale, or manufacture.)

Only one problem Senator.  Flash suppressors are and always have been perfectly legal in this state and noise suppressors (inaccurately known as silencers) have been legal in this state 2011.

Want to know the best part?  Senators Murray, Kline, and Kohl-Welles (all consistently liberal senators and the three original sponsors of this bill) voted FOR the legalization of noise suppressors.  The vote was almost unanimous in both houses.  Now they want to ban any firearm that can actually accept the noise suppressors that they voted to legalize.

Anyone suspicious that they voted yes two years ago because the issue was a slam dunk and it provided them political cover as "supporting gun owners"?

Assault Rifle or Personal Defensive Weapon?

In the words of Al Gore, "the debate is over".  Here are excerpts from the Department of Homeland Security Statement of Work (in other words, a request for bids).  You can read the whole thing here.

The scope of this contract is to provide a total of up to 7,000 5.56x45mm North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) personal defense weapons (PDW)

General. DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required. Only one specific nomenclature firearm from each Contractor shall be submitted for solicitation testing and considered for contract award.

3.9.10 The action shall be capable of accepting all standard NATO STANAG 20 and 30 round M16 magazines (NSN 1005-00-921-5004) and Magpul 30 round PMAG (NSN 1005-01-576-5159). The magazine well shall be designed to allow easy insertion of a magazine.
3.9.11 The receiver top shall be equipped with an integral MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny rail for mounting sights and other accessories.
3.10 Fire Control Selector.
3.10.1 The fire control selector shall have three positions; safe, semi-automatic, and automatic. The selector shall have positions which are clearly labeled for the mode of fire.
3.10.2 The selector shall operate manually without binding from one position to another when the hammer is cocked.
3.10.3 The selector shall remain in place in each position under spring detent.
3.10.4 The selector shall be capable of being checked for position both visually and by feel.
3.10.5 The selector shall be movable between the mode of fire positions by the operator without moving the firing hand from the shooting position.
3.10.6 The selector shall be designed to allow for operation by left and right handed shooters with no parts changes or modification.
3.12 Overall Length.
3.12.1 The overall length of the firearm shall not exceed 30 inches with the stock fully extended.
3.12.2 The overall length of the firearm shall not exceed 20 inches with the stock fully retracted and/or folded.
3.14.3 The barrel shall be equipped with a flash suppressor and/or muzzle brake. The muzzle device will be rated on its ability to reduce muzzle signature. It is desired that the muzzle devise effectively reduces muzzle rise during firing.
3.15 Caliber. The firearm shall be chambered for 5.56x45mm NATO.
3.16 Pistol Grip.
3.16.1 The pistol grip shall be a fixed, vertical pistol grip constructed of a durable material.
3.16.2 The pistol grip shall be designed for use by right or left handed shooters.

And a little observation from The Market Ticker

If the government needs 7,000 Personal Defensive Weapons that can accept and use standard 30 round magazines, possesses a folding stock, are chambered in 5.56 NATO, have a flash suppressor/muzzle brake and have a pistol grip (not to mention being capable of select-fire) then the people can certainly have one or more of them for themselves -- right?  After all this is a Personal Defensive Weapon by the Government's own official, on-the-record declaration!

Read his whole post here.

Their ignorance has no excuse

So one wonders if it is motivated by malice.  Easy enough to find out the facts if you really want to know them.

Congressman Adam Smith, Democrat, Washington on the radio today stated that he was by no means a gun expert.  Then he came out with this gem.

"Assault weapons fire faster, are more powerful, and are more deadly than other rifles.  That is not open to question."

There is not one single true thing in that statement.  Leaving aside the idiotic definition of cosmetic features making a rifle an "assault weapon", assault weapons fire at the exact same rate as any other semi-automatic firearm (once each time you pull the trigger).

They have the same power as any other rifle chambered in the same cartridge (for example the AR-15 is chambered in 5.56mm (.223 which is one of the most popular cartridges in the United States).

They are no more deadly than any other rifle chambered in the same caliber since it is caliber and rate of fire that make a rifle deadly.

So why are they anti-gunners misrepresenting this kind of rifle?  Well one, they want to ban all firearms, much like they did in England and they are working on in Australia.  Two, they think of this as a bargaining chip.  Smith stated that, later in the interview.  He would be willing to drop pushing the assault weapon ban if only we would be willing to support a raft of other "common sense" legislation, which includes, of course, a ban on magazines with more than some to-be-determined capacity.  Since that proposal is about as pointless as an assault weapons ban, why would we bargain away anything?