“weapons of war”?

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.)

they hate them because they are black

Ask the average “gun control” extremist what their desires are, and they will assure you – ad nauseam – that your “hunting” rifles are safe, and all they want to get rid of are those dangerous “weapons of mass destruction” known as “assault weapons”.

While I think I have done an adequate job demonstrating how the very notion of an “assault weapon ban” is, itself, a meaningless, futile falsehood designed exclusively to attack any firearm the “gun control” organizations happen to not like that day, I have not yet addressed the above “argument”.

Not terribly shocking, they are lying – your hunting rifles are emphatically not safe from “gun control” extremists.

Consider the following tweet from Shannon Watts – if you do not know the name, I do not blame you, but suffice to say that she is the figurehead of an ineffective, astroturf, rabidly-anti-rights “gun control” organization:

Take a good look at that rifle.

It is undoubtedly scary to people who do not know better – it has an adjustable stock, a pistol grip, an extended magazine, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel, and – perhaps worst of all – it is painted black.

Now consider this rifle:

It has none of the objectionable ergonomic features, and, best of all, it is attired in a perfectly acceptable, fuddish color scheme.

Alright, have you reflected on the differences between those two rifles sufficiently? Allow me to let you in on a little secret:

They are the same rifle.

The Ruger Precision Rimfire rifle and the Ruger American Rimfire rifle are both bolt-action, removable-magazine-fed rifles chambered in .22 Long Rifle. In fact, both use the same magazines; you could literally drop the magazine out of the Evil Black Rifle, insert it into the traditional wooden rifle, and keep on shooting with the latter. Likewise, they use the same bolts, and the stainless steel action and barrel will drop in that black stock with just the turn of a few screws.

Oh, and the real kicker? The wood-stocked rifle has four more inches of barrel, yielding up to 60 additional feet per second of velocity for the bullet, meaning the “classic-looking” firearm is strictly more powerful.

So, allow us to recap: the head of a national “gun control” organization wants to obstruct legal adults from buying firearms that employ 194-year-old technology, which, in turn, has been at the heart of most hunting rifles since the turn of the last century. Even worse, these rifles are chambered in one of the most – if not the most – common hunting caliber for about as long.

Tell me again how our “hunting rifles” are safe.

the ineffectiveness of “assault weapon bans”, part 1

Do you what the difference is between this rifle:

… and this rifle:

I will give you a few hints to make it easier:

Both are made by Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc.

Both will happily shoot either .223 Remington or 5.56x45mm NATO.

Both are semi-automatic and gas-operated with locking breech bolts and a self-cleaning gas cylinder.

Both will shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger, one round at a time.

Both accept removable magazines ranging from five rounds to 100 rounds.

Both have cold hammer-forged barrels for increased accuracy and longevity.

Both are configured to accept magnifying optics and have ghost-ring sights if you choose to stick with iron sights.

Both are set up to accept slings.

In other words, I have a confession to make:  there is no functional difference between the two rifles.  

Yes, one is configured to be more ergonomic for the end user, what with the adjustable butt stock and the flash hider to mitigate the flash of the round being fired beneath the sights/optic.  However, the top rifle can almost entirely be transformed into the bottom rifle so long as you have a small screwdriver and the “tactical” stock (even the flash hider can be added without having to thread the barrel).

That is all you need.

But the top rifle would have been legal under the failed Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and under the current California Assault Weapons Control Act, while the bottom rifle was not and is not.

Even better?  The top rifle’s barrel is about two inches longer, giving it about 50-100 feet-per-second more velocity at the muzzle.  So, arguably, it is the more-powerful of the two rifle… but it is the AWB-approved one.

When the features that were banned under the “Assault Weapon Ban” have no actual impact on the operation of the firearm, and when that ban can be circumvented by a single screwdriver, just what was its point?

(For reference, the top rifle is a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, and the bottom is a Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rifle.  Both images were borrowed from Ruger.)