Now that “gun control” is back in the national attention, the usual suspects are demanding that we, once again, pass a federal “assault weapons ban”, with one of the reasons for doing so being, “‘military-style’ ‘weapons of war’ do not belong on our streets!”
Ignore, for a second, that law enforcement agencies – at all levels – already are using actual military hardware and actual weapons of war on our streets, up to and including armored fighting vehicles.
Ignore, for a second, that basically none of the firearms prohibited under the last, failed “Assault Weapons Ban” were used by regular militaries or in wars.
Instead, allow us to ask a relatively simple question: do “gun control” extremists even know what a “weapon of war” is?
We have touched on this concept briefly before, but I think it is time for a deeper dive. Consider the following examples:
This is a “weapon of war”, and one of the highest sniper kill counts recorded was achieved with a rifle like this one, but it was not covered by the previous federal AWB or any state’s ban. (Incidentally, it is also not legally considered a firearm, given this specific example was manufactured before 1899.)
This is not a “weapon of war”, but it would have been covered by the previous AWB. (The stock did not exist at the time, and the fact that it is a .22LR rifle is immaterial to the federal ban; after all, “gun control” extremists hate rimfire rifles.)
This is a weapon of war – quite possibly both in the UK and Israel, based on its proof marks – but was not covered by the previous AWB.
This is not a weapon of war, and would have been covered by the federal AWB. (Once again, this particular rifle did not exist at the time, but all of the recent calls for a new “assault weapon ban” take the old law and make it even more expansive, so I feel certain this particular firearm would be included.)
This is a weapon of war, and, in fact, one so terrifyingly effective that the Germans protested its use during World War 1. However, it was not covered by the AWB.
This is not a weapon of war, but it was included in the ’94 ban – in fact, it was one of the specifically-named firearms.
This is a weapon of war, and was once referred to as “the greatest battle implement ever developed“. It was not subject to the “assault weapon ban”.
This is not a weapon of war, but would have been prohibited by the AWB.
This very much is a weapon of war, and might be one of the most pervasive examples of the concept. However, it was not banned by the federal AWB.
This is not a weapon of war, but would still be banned under a repeat federal AWB.
Are you starting to see a pattern?
If “gun control” extremists actually want to ban “weapons of war”… why are they not calling for actual weapons of war to be banned with their zombie “assault weapon ban”?
And if all they want to do with this rotting, shambling piece of legislation is only ban “weapons of war” – as they’ve been trying to proclaim for nearly a month now – then why is all that other stuff included in the blast radius?
Perhaps they have no idea what they are talking about.
And perhaps they are being… less than honest.
In either case, why should we take them – or their desires – seriously?
(Note: Mosin Nagant image copyright 7.62x54r.net. 10/22 image copyright LA Police Gear. Kel-Tec CMR image copyright Cheaper Than Dirt / Oleg Volk. Winchester 1897 image copyright Rock Island Auction. Intratec TEC-9 image copyright EGunner. M1 Garand image copyright Rock Island Auction. Hatsan Escort Raider image copyright Hatsan. SKS image copyright Classic Firearms. Kel-Tec SU-16E image copyright Sportsman’s Guide.)