"Assault" Weapons and YOU

The Times editorialized on January 15th on gun control (again).  I commented there, briefly, but I wanted to make a couple of additional points, if I may.  Here is one of the key requirements that the Times has for firearms legislation (who wants to bet that the Admin gave them this word for word?):

 The assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 should be renewed and tightened, with a special emphasis on prohibiting magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The millions who already own such weapons — unnecessary for hunting or protection — should be required to register them and submit to a background check to reduce the mass killing that produced this agonized debate. 

One of the many problems with the Times, a problem shared by politicians and those stupid political "consultants" that appear on the talking head shows, is that staying "on message" sometimes makes one look like a fucking idiot.  You know the drill.  Some Congressman is caught with a hooker and fifteen pounds of cocaine and his mantra is "I was there to find Jesus" repeated over and over as if it is some magic incantation that will do away with the horror that he created for himself.  And if he is important enough, his party (using your political contributions) will hire some hacks that you never heard of to go on O'Reilly and stare eagerly off into space and repeat again and again "He was trying to find Jesus" irrespective of the questions that poor Bill shoots at him/her.  That is the point where you throw a shoe at the TV and remark, with an expletive or two, that only an idiot would believe one word coming out of the hack's mouth.  You are too smart for that, right?  I mean, you wouldn't be taken in by mere vain repetition  would you?  

Of course not.  I mean if the Times repeats incessantly that "Assault weapons" are good for nothing but knocking off innocent citizens then they must be right, right?  

"Assault Weapon" = Rambo

<Sigh>.  To begin with, if you actually use the term "Assault Weapon" without referring to a selective fire weapon used by the armed forces, you have, actually, been suckered in and had your brain washed.  Now, I could say that this is an important issue for all of us and only a limp dicked liberal tool would slavishly accept terminology from an authority without any sort of question as long as it supports your biases.  But I won't.  I'll just give you a quick lesson in firearms nomenclature using Venn Diagrams (since you are probably fairly well educated and know what Venn Diagrams are)

Assault weapons are defined by just one characteristic: they can fire either semi-automatically (i.e. one shot per trigger pull) OR as a machine gun (many shots as long as the trigger is pulled).  If they don't have this capability no amount of whining and tooth gnashing will make them an Assault Weapon.  Not bayonet lugs nor collapsible stocks.

Speaking of which, do you know why collapsible stocks collapse?  To make the weapon more dangerous?   Jesus, you probably think that Nancy Pelosi is a hottie too.  No, idiot.  Listen: The stock moves in and out about 5 inches.  The reason is to make shouldering the weapon more comfortable if you are wearing something bulky.  BTW, why in the world would a bayonet lug under the barrel matter in any sane universe?  Crazy.

The fact is that these semi-automatic rifles and carbines (a carbine is a rifle with a shorter barrel) are used by a variety of folks ... like for target shooting ...

Or for hunting

Or as part of a collection or as a legal memento of the time one spent in the service of one's country.  Naturally, these less than dangerous pursuits are invariably neglected by the Times and by the news outlets that pick their stories up from the Times wire.

It really does amaze me how the dialog can be completely co-opted.  

Stay tuned ...

MJC