A surprising number of people (mostly non-gun owners) have been rallying around the term "assault weapon." I have seen numerous articles and social media posts/memes saying "Nobody needs an assault weapon! That's not for hunting! Ban assault weapons now!" etc. They seem to have missed the big problem that they can't even define what an "assault weapon" is! Ah, but they do know, at least some of them...read on.
The anti-gun crowd like to describe "assault weapons" with broad vague strokes saying that they are "designed for killing," they have "mass capacity feeding devices," "they use too powerful bullets" etc.
However, try to write legislation based on that! Well, the U.S. Congress did in 1994 and passed a 10 year "assault weapons ban" (AWB). How did that go?
Well, manufacturers and people looked at the definitions and modified the firearms so that they met the requirements. Even after 2004, when the AWB expired 10 years later, CA continued with its own restrictions. People cried afoul that the firearms were still available with a few cosmetic changes - which is because that is the way that the bill's authors wrote it- based on cosmetic features that had little to do with a firearm's lethality. They said that it violated the "spirit of the law." Ah, but what is that? (keep reading)
And as for CA, people are crying afoul because the firearms recently used were ILLEGALLY modified. These changes didn't violate the spirit of the law. They outright violated the law.
So, with so many articles, editorials and comments about "assault weapons," what are they exactly again?
I don't know, but will know when I see one.
Yep, that's the comment that I am seeing more and more. What the hell does that mean???? And less importantly we have seen the rise of a new term: "assault-style" as in "assault-style clothes." I see a pocket capacity limitation coming for cargo pants, but I digress.
It is not very hard to boil down the what anti-gunners view as the "spirit of the law" and the firearm features that they object to:
- semi-automatic
- magazine fed (not even necessarily a detachable magazine, as I believe that they object to clips, tubes, etc. as "mass feeding")
Yes, I seriously believe when they say "assault weapons" they mean semi-auto. Sounds more menacing doesn't it? Especially when you consider that the most prevalent rifle in the U.S. for ownership and new purchases is the AR-15 and that the majority of hand gun purchases are semi-auto (I would be surprised if it wasn't 90%).
Basically, almost every gun owner in the United States owns what could be considered an "assault weapon."
Think about that the next time you read an article or meme calling for the ban and/or confiscation of "assault weapons." Instant criminalization of gun owners.
And the anti-gun crowd is at least being honest about it now.
What a change it has been though. Just in Oct. prevalent thinking was like this article in the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/05/forget-about-changing-the-second-amendment-and-stop-focusing-on-mass-killings/) that said:
Few gun control advocates promote the idea of ending individual gun ownership. All of the major gun control organizations have come out in favor of individual gun ownership. All of them are fighting for more effective laws to prevent criminals or the mentally ill from getting their hands on guns.
Remember, it was only a couple of weeks ago that anti-gun people were calling gun owners "paranoid" and saying that "nobody wants to take your guns away?"
While today (Dec 4, 2015) we have this from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?_r=0):
It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency...
and more directly to the point:
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
And despite the fact that the author admits that it will not stop the mass killings:
They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.
He justifies it because at least they (other countries) did something:
But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not.
There you have it!! In black and white for the entire Nation to read. This is something that I believe that the NYT has ALWAYS believed as I believe the ultimate goal of many (if not all) anti-gun control supporters. This is not the only editorial that has this sentiment. After the recent shooting there was an editorial from UK Guardian calling for the assassination (!) of NRA Members (which I unsurprisingly can't find now) or this article from Vox (which has been out a while) saying that gun owners should be shot as a requirement of owning a gun: http://www.salon.com/2015/10/16/want_a_gun_take_a_bullet_new_rule_before_you_pack_heat_you_will_know_what_it_feels_like_to_be_shot/
"Reasonable regulation" or "common sense"? Hardly.
Random Facts:
# of gun confiscated in Australia? There are conflicting reports but estimates are between 700K and 1 milliion.
# of guns in gun restrictive California? Over 10 million.
CA incidentally has a program to confiscate firearms from felons. Read about its high cost here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/05/05/california-discovers-its-really-expensive-to-confiscate-peoples-guns/
