"A hundred bucks no liberal can actually define what an assault rifle is."

I was at Free Republic, searching around for something interesting and ran across a link to this news story about banning "assault weapons" in Maryland. The article is outrageous, but I will leave my commentary out until the end when you understand more.

I doubt that many of you are aware of it, but I happen to own an "assault rifle" or as I like to refer to it, an EEEEVIL BLACK RIFLE!! I despise with a bitter passion the debates over assault rifles because 90% of Americans are completely clueless over what exactly they are. And how could they understand? As my online, high-speed encyclopedia points out, "Classification of assault weapons has proven extremely difficult since there is no basic functional difference between the types of firearms targeted for these bans and many very common hunting and target-shooting firearms." (emphasis added) For instance, my EEEEVIL BLACK RIFLE!!! shoots .308 caliber bullets which are def. in the top five most commonly used calibers for rifle hunting. Equipped with a 5 round magazine, my rifle is legal to hunt with and makes perfect sense to do so. The main difference between my rifle and a semi-automatic hunting rifle is the color (black) and a pistol grip. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!! Well, I will attempt to shed some light on the situation and explain why assault weapons are not evil and touch on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban as well.

First, assault weapons were never fully banned under the Assault Weapons Ban. I bought my CETME (legally) a year before the ban was lifted in Sept. 2004. I walked into a gun show, had a nice guy check my FBI background, and walked out with my rifle that day. It had certain accessory changes to it, but it still functioned EXACTLY the same as it would have without those accessories as a rifle. Keep in mind, my E.B.R. is semi-automatic. It fires once everytime I pull the trigger, just like any semi-automatic pistol or rifle. Fully automatic rifles have been highly regulated since 1934 and are not the same thing at all. My M-16 that I have here in Iraq is illegal without a special permit in any state in the U.S. because it is fully automatic. Same with my M-249 light machinegun.

They were regulated heavily, manufacturing of certain parts and importation of certain parts was banned, magazines holding more than ten rounds were not allowed to be manufactured, but "note that the law did not ban the possession or sale of assault weapons or high-capacity magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. This provision for "pre-ban" weapons created an artificially inflated price point in the free market for such items, a disruption in the market that lasted until the ban sunset." (emphasis added) Basically what that is saying, is that the ban did little except make manufacturers stop producing high capacity magazines, certain parts, and certain weapons. I had no trouble buying high capacity magazines because I could purchase "pre-ban" magazines or bayonets or whatever else they banned. What good does that do? Um, not a whole lot. It was annoying and more expensive, but that was about it. As the encyclopedia points out, "...assault weapons are identical in function to just about any semi-automatic firearm." Accessories were banned, such as bayonet lugs (it holds the bayonet in place), folding stocks, and flash surpressors were not allowed, but "manufacturers complied with the law by removing the banned items" and then sold the guns legally.

Doing a few minutes of research into what the ban attempted to regulate gives me this eerie feeling of complete and total confusion. Why is it bad to have a pistol grip on a semi-automatic shotgun? Because it looks scarier? How freakin ridiculous. The bayonet lug on assault rifles is my favorite - what idiot would use a bayonet on the end of a rifle to kill someone? Why bring a long, clunky rifle around and then use a bayonet? Frickin morons. Proving once again, this ban was about "assault weapons" being SCARY!!! Don't get me wrong, I am sure there are people out there who think that me owning a 30 round magazine is unnecessary, but like I said before, it is easy to get "pre-ban" high capacity magazines anyway. I feel the best word for people who make laws like this is at Seeing double: "Asshats!" The only rational part I can see in the ban was telescopic or folding stocks - I suppose if you wanted to commit a crime with an "assault weapon" this would make it easier to conceal under a coat. The rest of it was ridiculous and politicized with the use of the SCAARRY word "ASSAULT WEAPON!!"

A government study was done on the ban in 1999. (on page three, you can see all the SCARY features of an AK-47!) It brings up similar things I explained earlier about the impact on manufacturers and the gun market, but in my opinion is quite hilarious. "Although the guns banned by this legislation were only rarely used in gun crimes before the ban, supporters felt that these weapons posed a threat to public safety because they are capable of firing many shots rapidly." Again, RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!! Hunting rifles could also fire many shots rapidly - you just need a larger magazine. The study said it hadn't had enough time to make a conclusion about the impacts of the ban on crime.

From a criminals perspective, you can easily understand why assault rifles are not generally used in gun crimes. They are way too big to conceal, and a pistol is just as effective if not more so at close ranges as a weapon. If you want to kill someone at long ranges, you aren't going to use an AK-47 - I could accurately shoot maybe out to 200 meters with one. It is not known for its accuracy. However, a good hunting rifle can accurately shoot well past 600 meters. Competition rifles are easily able to shoot past 1000 meters.

I have always been confused with gun control - all it seems to do is limit me (a responsible gun owner) from purchasing what I wish to defend myself. Isn't that what the constitution gives me the right to do? I know Michigan's constitution is pretty clear: Article I, Section 6: "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state." I know that Michigan has criminals who are not capable of using guns properly. Let's stop the crime there - preventing me from purchasing shotguns with pistol grips or rifles with bayonet lugs is not going to reduce crime.

Now, to the article. The quotes from the article are very revealing. There is not one person quoted who disagrees with gun control, and all the quotes put "assault weapons" in a very bad light. My favorite was from a Baltimore Police Chief when he said police seized 22 assault weapons last year while collecting 4,500 other guns. "That may not sound like much, but if you've ever seen one of these things in person, they're absolutely frightening." Asshat! You collected 22 SCCAAAARRRY rifles out of 4500 other guns!?!! Did these 22 out of 4500 create more crime, or cause more deaths, or kill ANYONE or were they just scary looking? (breathe, Phil) A Lt. Col. in the Reserves says, "Assault weapons have one purpose and one purpose only: That is to kill human beings." Ridiculous! I shoot mine all the time - I haven't killed anyone! They are fun to shoot if done responsibly, and if I needed to, I could defend my life with it. More than likely, I would grab my pistol!! My good friend Jeff owns two assault rifles, does that make him a murderer! Is he a criminal? Asshat is quickly becoming a new favorite word.

(Updated) At first I thought "a bill that would set minimum sentences for those who use assault weapons to commit crimes" made sense. Jason jumped in with his two cents and pointed out something I hadn't thought of. "Extra penalties for people who commit crimes with assault rifles. Seriously, if you kill someone with a pistol or assault rifle, what's the friggin' difference?" An excellent point, the victim is still dead regardless of how scary the rifle looked.

Penalize the ones who use these weapons irresponsibly or for criminal use as you would with any other gun. The rest of the 99% of us who use the guns for target shooting or defense should be allowed to own them!

For a much better written post on gun control, check out American Partisan. " If one is truly interested in a reduction in violence and crime, then logic demands that our efforts be focused on those that commit the crimes."

A Free Republic member posted a liberal's definition of:
"Assault weapon (u SALT WEP uhn) noun
1. Any class of weapon designed to be operated from a semi-rotated position, having one or more of the following features:
a. a stock which is of dark-colored synthetic material, and is therefore scary;
b. a device for the attachment of a bayonet on the end, facilitating the weapon's potential use in untold numbers of unspeakable crimes despite lack of evidence to any such use ever having occurred;
c. any device for the storage and provision of ammunition which extends below the aforementioned scary stock, making the weapon therefore scarier;
d. a "pistol grip," which facilitates the aforementioned semi-rotated operation, thereby making the brandishment and/or operation of the weapon more sinister;

2. Any class of weapons which at the present, or at some time in the future, can be presented to an uninformed populace as fearsome or dangerous, thereby gaining a political advantage.

See -- defining an assault weapon isn't that hard."