Connect with us

Guns and Crime

Assault weapons: Empty threats, empty fears, empty definitions

Published

on

Assault weapons Empty threats empty fears empty definitions

The coming Democratic Primary has begun in earnest and invariably somebody begins discussing the idea of reinstituting an assault weapons ban. Most recently, Bernie Sanders has entered the fray:

The common refrain is that assault weapons are “designed specifically to kill”, their intended use is for “military purposes”, and they were never meant for private ownership.

But what is an assault weapon exactly? Despite the use of the term by supporters of tougher gun laws and its consistent presence in the news, it is not a term used by almost anyone familiar with military or civilian weapon systems.

Why, you might ask, is the term “assault rifle” not used? After all, the various rifles used by the world’s militaries, such as the M16, M4, SCAR, G36, or FAMAS, are all classified as assault rifles (something avid video gamers even know). So why do we not use the term assault rifle? Because assault rifles are already banned for use by most civilians.

An assault rifle is a modern firearm, typically utilizing a lighter rifle caliber, made of a light (usually synthetic) frame and capable of selective-fire. Selective-fire is the key portion of the assault rifle definition. In order for a firearm to be considered an assault rifle, it must at least have the dual capability of semi-automatic fire (one trigger pull, one shot) and a form of automatic fire (one trigger pull, several shots). Assault rifles are military/paramilitary specific weapons and are not available on the general civilian market.

What is available to most civilians are variants of the Armalite-15, and weapons inspired by it, which have had the selective-fire feature removed. An AR-15 purchased at a local gun store looks, feels, and appears just like it’s military cousin. But because it has had the selective fire options removed it is no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic weapon on the civilian market, including the majority of popular shotguns, pistols, and target shooting rifles. In fact, because the typical AR-15 civilian variant maintains the light .223 caliber, this weapon is in actuality one of the least lethal weapons available to the civilian population. To make it even less effective for civilian use, its design makes it among the least likely to be successfully carried concealed. (The concealment factor is actually the major factor that makes a weapon dangerous in civilian use. The rate of handgun use in firearm violence is astronomically higher than all other firearm categories combined because handguns are so easily concealed).

The AR-15 is often used by mass shooters because it is cheap, widely available, and looks scary. But the actual effectiveness of the weapon is far below other weapons available on the market.
This brings me back to my original question: what is an assault weapon? From the standpoint of actual terminology for weapon systems, there is no such classification as an assault weapon. It is a legal term with loose and variable definitions. And, most pointedly, none of the definitions that have been used make effective sense for the end resolution they seek. Generally speaking, most assault weapons related laws are built around magazine-size and aesthetic appearance.

Is the nation ready to revive the American Conservative Movement?

The Federal Assault Weapons ban implemented by President Clinton defined, in essence, an assault weapon as anything that looks like a military-style weapon, is semi-automatic, and has a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets. This classification is vague to the extreme. It casts too large of a net to be realistic while simultaneously allowing for too many stark loopholes to be effective in its goals.

For example, a Ruger 10/22 (generally used for small-game hunting and competition shooting) is semi-automatic, designed based on the M1 Carbine from World War II, and easily utilizes magazines that hold up to (and beyond) 30 bullets. While this firearm was not banned under the Federal Assault Weapons ban (it was too prevalent to be realistically removed from the market), it does meet the law’s definition of an assault weapon in nearly every way and yet, despite estimates showing over 6 million 10/22s being sold on the civilian market, I have not been able to find an instance where the weapon has been used successfully in a mass shooting.

Now, compare this to the Savage-Springfield 67H and Savage 311-D Shotguns. Have you heard of these firearms? The Savage-Springfield 67H is a pump-action 12-Gauge shotgun, and the Savage 311-D is a double-barrel break-open shotgun. Neither weapon meets any definition of an assault weapon, in any written law, unless the barrels are sawn off (an easy aftermarket customization which couldn’t be controlled by a ban). Few could recognize these shotguns on sight, few have ever heard of them, and there is not a single law or ban on the table that would keep these shotguns out of the hands of criminals…and yet these are the exact models of shotguns used to devastating effect by the Columbine Shooters.

This is why assault weapons bans are empty threats based on empty fears. They are reactionary attempts to ban prevalent firearms, which could never be fully removed from American society, using empty definitions that do not take into account the actual lethality of different types of firearms. Such bans will solve absolutely nothing and would likely make matters worse. Even more troubling to consider is that when such laws inevitably fail, gun control advocates will cast an even wider net using their existing regulations to make it almost impossible for American citizens to obtain the firearms best suited for their personal defense. Because there is no set definition of what an assault weapon is, the working and legal definition can change. After all, what firearm isn’t “designed to kill” and which firearms do not have the fingerprints of military development somewhere in their pedigree? It is clear that the current call for an Assault Weapons Ban would accomplish nothing but a foot in the door.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Advertisement

0

Democrats

Democrats have no answer for the rise of MS-13. In fact, they’re helping them.

Published

on

Democrats have no answer for the rise of MS-13 In fact theyre helping them

The left and right can debate all day about sovereignty, how to handle asylum cases, and whether or not to build a wall on the southern border. But there should be no debate about whether, the notorious gang that runs much of Central America and is building a similar empire in the United states, should be allowed to continue their reign of terror. In fact, there is no debate about it at all right now as Democrats are unwilling to talk about it.

Why? Because they have no answers to stopping them and their proposed policies for handling the migrant surge invariably work towards helping MS-13 continue to infiltrate our nation.

The latest heinous act getting attention has gang members accused of beheading and dismembering rival gang members in the United States, among other hideous crimes. And yet when the President referred to them as “animals,” Democrats and much of the media tried to insinuate the President was referring to all immigrants. They kept this lie up for months after it was debunked. They’re still repeating it today.

Here’s who the President called “animals”:

While Democrats focus on the “concentration camps” and push for instant release of the hundreds of thousands of migrants crossing the border illegally and straining CBP, criminals like MS-13 gang members are sneaking in. The southern border is extremely porous and border patrol resources are being wasted on the migrant surge. While border patrol officers are stuck handing out diapers and completing paperwork for migrants, the “animals” are making their way across the border undetected.

But it isn’t just Democrats on Capitol Hill. Activist judges have thwarted literally every attempt by President Trump to deter illegal immigration and dissuade migrants from making the dangerous journey in the first place. They perform judicial gymnastics to find reasons why the President is not allowed to do what it takes to secure our borders. Meanwhile, these activist judges are complicit in the death and destruction they cause by assisting MS-13 in their gang activities.

Instead of coming to their senses, the Democrats are doubling down. Elizabeth Warren released her open borders plan, and we can expect the rest of the field to follow suit. They have literally no solution for the criminal infestation crossing the southern border. But that’s not stopping them from attempting to make the border even less secure. In 2020, remember these gang members. Remember their victims and the horrible way they died. Remember every American citizen killed by MS-13. Most importantly, remember which party has every intention of making the problem worse if they’re given the power to do so.

Every MS-13 robbery, rape, and murder is a direct result of Democratic lawmakers and activist judges preventing the President from doing his job to secure the borders. Ask them for solutions and all they can do is change the subject.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

GOP says The Squad’s goal is anarchy. They’re half correct.

Published

on

GOP says The Squads goal is anarchy Theyre half correct

I’ve seen the future. Okay, so it’s a potential future and I wasn’t granted a prophetic vision or anything. I’ve just been watching what’s said (and more importantly what’s not said) by the radical progressives of the so-called “Squad” of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib. The freshmen Congresswomen have made a name for themselves in recent weeks, hitting a crescendo this week after President Trump’s “racist” attack on them.

The GOP released a video trying to tie their actions and words together to highlight a possible conclusion, that The Squad as well as other hyper-leftists in DC and across the country are pushing for anarchy. This is only half the story. Anarchy is a short-term goal that’s designed to get the people to call for their real goal: a totalitarian government that will be made necessary if the chaos The Squad and others are bringing about is allowed to flourish.

Anarchy and totalitarianism are opposites on the political spectrum, but it doesn’t take a giant leap of intellectual gymnastics to see how one can lead to the other. By promoting lawlessness through a combination of policies such as open borders, criminal justice reform, and the encouragement of violence through groups like Antifa, the Justice Democrats (who control every move made by The Squad) want things to get so bad in America, the only solution many will see is for the government to step in and take control of everything.

The path to losing our freedoms, all of them, is one that abuses these freedoms so badly, people are willing to give them away for the sake of safety and security. That’s what the Justice Democrats know to be true, which is why their pawns are promoting an agenda that leads to anarchy. They want lawlessness because through the absence of people abiding by the law comes the requests made by the people for a king. Just as Saul rose to power against God’s recommendations to the people, so too can a totalitarian state rise in America if we do not heed the warning signs pointing to anarchy today.

Anarchy is only a short-term goal. It’s a means to an end. And it’s not a goal that needs to be fully achieved in order to move towards their real goal. They only need chaos to get bad enough for the people to start calling for a crackdown. At that point, they can start implementing measures that make the Patriot Act seem patriotic. We’re already seeing it manifest in the the policies that are growing in popularity today coming from the Democrats:

  • Green New Deal is a complete government takeover of many industries, including those that have little or no connection to climate change. As Justice Democrats co-founder and AOC’s Chief of Staff Saikat Chakrabarti declared, the Green New Deal is not about climate change.
  • Medicare-for-All is a solution being proposed by a few Democratic nominees for President and that’s embraced by The Squad. This is a solution to the failure of Obamacare, which allowed the government to take too much control of the healthcare industry. Their response: Take even more control. Eliminate private health insurance. Put healthcare decisions in the hands of bureaucrats. Raise taxes on everyone, not just the rich. It’s a totalitarian dream system to keep people as sick as possible.
  • Open Borders is the element of the far-left’s plan that they won’t name directly. They want lawlessness at the border and they want it to spill over to all facets of America. But creating de facto open borders without invoking the name of it doesn’t remove the destructive qualities.
  • Gun Confiscations represent the single solution to the biggest roadblock the left has with imposing their totalitarian dreams. As long as the people are well-armed, it will be difficult for them to achieve their end goals. Firearms in the hands of citizens makes them harder to control, so taking away the firearms is an absolute must if The Squad plans to achieve their goals in their lifetime.

It’s good that the GOP is addressing this dangerous group of people, but let’s not get confused between their short term goal of anarchy and their real goal of totalitarianism. They don’t want the people in control. They want control of the people.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Jeffrey Epstein’s ties to Bill Clinton

Published

on

Jeffrey Epsteins ties to Bill Clinton

Powerful men across the country and around the world are sweating over child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s arrest. He may turn on them, cutting a deal to reveal all the dirty secrets the billionaire may hold. We don’t know a lot about who could be involved, but there’s someone who seems to be most closely attached to him: President Bill Clinton.

One wouldn’t know this based solely on the way mainstream media has been covering it. The loose associations between Epstein and President Trump have been more of the focus. Anything they can do to attach the President to the pedophile is fair game.

But don’t expect them to ignore Clinton if Epstein implicates him. They have no allegiance to the former president. If anything, they would love to roast Clinton to prove they’re fair and balanced. Nevertheless, the connections are worth noting.

This comprehensive look at Clinton’s ties to the criminal billionaire by Gina Shakespeare at The Epoch Times breaks down all the connections and comes to the only logical conclusion: Slick Willy is very nervous right now.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending