On February 25th Attorney General Eric Holder was quoted as saying
As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to re institute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.
Well Obama can take his “assault weapon ban” and shove it up his liberal ass.
First of all lets define an assault weapons as used by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which caries the subtitle of Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
A semi-automatic rifle that accepts detachable magazines, and two or more of the following is an assault weapon.
- A folding, or telescopic stock.
- A pistol grip.
- A bayonet mount.
- A flash suppressor, or a threaded barrel that may accommodate one.
- A grenade launcher.
A semi-automatic pistol that accepts detachable magazines, and two or more of the following is an assault weapon.
- A magazine that attaches to the pistols grip.
- A threaded barrel to attach a barrel extender, a flash suppressor, a handgrip, or a suppressor.
- A barrel shroud that could be used as a hand-hold.
- Has an unloaded weight of more than 50 oz.
- A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm.
A semi-automatic shotgun with two of more of the following is an assault weapon.
- A folding, or telescopic stock.
- A pistol grip.
- Has a fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds.
- A detachable magazine.
Now lets give an assault weapon a more valid definition.
An assault weapon has the following characteristics:
- It is a single weapon that has the ability to be fired from the shoulder.
- It must be capable of selective fire. Be that semi-automatic with the option of burst or fully automatic.
- It must chambered for an intermediate power cartridge being more than a pistol and less than a standard rifle.
- Its ammunition must be supplied by a detachable box style magazine.
The definition used by the government for the Federal Assault Weapons Ban is ridiculous at best. I will use one of my favorite rifles of all time for a couple of examples on why I think the feds definition has no substance. The Ruger 10/22 is a small caliber varmint rifle use for hunting small game and general “plinking”. This platform is highly customizable with the ability to add a folding or telescopic stock, a pistol grip, a suppressor, and with a little ingenuity a bayonet mount. All these items are currently legal and it needs to remain that way. Is this rifle any more dangerous to the overpopulated prarie dog towns that riddle our country? Not hardly, sure it can have a folding stock, a pistol grip, and a suppressor, but it still fires without any of the above. The same holds true for one of my other favorite rifles - the AR-15. It can accept all of the accessories that would classify it as assault rifle according to Obama. But once again without any or all of the items it still fires - one round per trigger squeeze.
My point is this … assault weapons as defined by the Federal Assault Weapons ban are no more dangerous than their non Assault Weapon counterparts. Its the assault weapons as defined by the second definition that scare the ever living hell out of me.
Is a rifle that can fire multiple rounds per trigger pull more dangerous than a rifle that can fire only one round per trigger pull? You bet your ass it is! These types of weapons have been strictly controlled since the National Firearms Act of 1934. You can still own and purchase NFA titled weapons manufactured before 1986 but because of the basic economic principle of supply and demand they are much more difficult to find, and they are very expensive. Economics will keep legal NFA weapons out of the hands of those who intend to do harm with them. An Assault Weapon Ban will not reduce or eliminate the undergound market for illegal NFA weapons which is the real problem, if you think it will then you really are more of a dumbass than you portray yourself to be.
