Let’s get a few things straight; lovers of freedom and those that value the protections of the Second Amendment have been cornered into using the incredibly misleading term “assault weapon.” Central to the left’s intimidation tactics, “assault weapons” sound so much scarier than “rifle.” But that’s what it is. They will throw out harsh-sounding terms like “pistol grip,” “barrel shroud” and “semi-automatic.” Don’t be fooled- these are terms to intimidate. They really mean “place where you put your hand,” “place where you put your other hand” and “weapon technology that is around 100 years old,” respectively.
But it sounds much scarier the way they say it, huh?
As liberals cry about having a “discussion” about gun control, gun rights advocates are sweating- not because the left may have a shred of validity to their point, but because despite their overwhelming ignorance on the subject of firearms and firearm politics, they are quite skilled at dominating the narrative by augmenting the drama.
As the left considers a new “assault weapons” ban, let’s consider the ridiculous provisions of the old ban that expired from lack of effectiveness at preventing crime.
The “assault weapons” ban defined any gun as an “assault weapon” that had:
- semi automatic, meaning one round is fired per each pull of the trigger
- used a detachable magazine
And featured any two of the following:
a folding or telescopic stock
a grenade launcher
a pistol grip
a bayonet mount
a flash suppressor
Their new favorite term is “weapons of war.” “What are these weapons of war doing on our streets?” But all guns can be weapons of war. The M1903 Springfield rifle was the rifle used in the First World War. It shot 30.06 rounds that can take down an elk. It was bolt-action, but a skilled soldier could work the action pretty quick with a little practice. It had no detachable magazine, was not semi-automatic, had no telescoping stock, certainly no grenade launcher, it had no pistol grip nor did it have a flash suppressor. Though, it did have one hell of a bayonet that came in handy in the trenches.
So, my question is: with a killer going on a rampage at a school, would the victims be any less dead if they were shot with 30.06s from a rifle that could not qualify as an “assault weapon” by anyone’s standard? Of course not. Categorizing the weapon just plays on peoples’ ignorance.
Take the M1903’s successor- the M1 Garand. The Garand was a phenomenal firearm that shot 30.06 as well. It possessed all of the same qualities of the M1903 except that it was semi-automatic and held 8 rounds instead of 5. Used to kill Germans and Japanese alike, the M1 Garand was a devastatingly effective “weapon of war.” Yet, it would not be touched by an “assault weapons” ban.
Again, Garands, the “weapons of war” that helped us win a two-front war and then move on to Korea, has a far more devastating round would be allowable to own.
We have already had a discussion about gun control- and then we passed the Second Amendment. Case closed. But if the left insists on yammering in our ears, I’m going to have to insist that they do so with correct terminology, refrain from amping up the rhetoric to scare people into submission and argue with some manner of logical coherency.
However, if they were able to do that, they would be conservatives…