If the pink guns are now or ever were military issue assault weapons ……. take them off the market. Smash them up and recycle the metal.
Richard Heckler
August 8, 2015
Comment to Letter: Gun control
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Within engineering tolerance, no civilian firearms are military issue. He’s fallen for (or trying to abuse) the fake term “assault rifle” to refer to a subset of civilian arms. What subset? That’s never defined. The best definition is “ones I don’t like”. Being painted black is one reason, though I guess now pink is another.
I guess that makes him sexist/ageist as well as various other categories of bigoted.
Another way to look at it is that every firearm has been military issue at one time or another.
A lot of them, possibly. All of them, clearly not. I doubt any army ever issued NAA mini-revolvers. Nor has any army issued any Boberg firearm as far as I’ve heard. There are bound to be any number of others.
There are some good responses over there. I particularly liked this one;
“May I please see your First, Fourth, Thirteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendment Permits, proof of training and receipts for fees paid to the government.”
Well there is a twenty-first amendment permit required, with fees paid to the government. I don’t know about training requirements. Brewers and distillers would likely not support a return to liberty though, being as it would remove current barriers to entry into their market by millions of individual competitors.
There is also a first amendment permit and training requirement in the form of the FCC licensing system, and likewise, the big broadcasters would almost certainly oppose a return to liberty in that arena.
How many Americans even understand the American Ideal? That would be an interesting poll. And of those who can demonstrate some basic understanding, how many support it and how many oppose it?
Paul K; the term “assault weapon” is the fake term. “Assault rifle”, or Sturmgewehr, is the correct term for a light rifle or carbine firing an intermediate power cartridge (more powerful than a typical pistol but less powerful than a typical high powered rifle), having full automatic fire capability and feeding from a detachable magazine. The largely cosmetic feature of the pistol grip stock is a other, possibly defining trait, being the THE original Sturmgewehr (fielded by the National Socialist Workers’ Party) had a pistol grip stock. So if it’s based on functionality only, then the Ruger AC-556, for example, is an assault rifle. If it has to include cosmetics then it isn’t. A Thompson is not an assault rifle because it fires a pistol cartridge (it’s a submachine gun), and an M-14 is not an assault rifle because it fires a full power rifle cartridge (it’s an automatic rifle).
The serious use of the term “assault weapon” pretty well defines a person as having little or no credibility in regard to firearms. Today’s socialists are pissed off at seeing anything that even resembles an assault rifle, I do herein posit, mainly because it’s THEIR weapon design and they don’t like seeing advocates of liberty carrying THEIR weapon.
I figured I’d throw all that out there, once again, for anyone who wants to maintain a shred of credibility in journalism. For the rest of you, keep on using the fake term “assault weapon”, please. It let’s us know immediately that we are dealing with a hustler/ignoramus who prefers to use emotional triggers instead of real information, reason and principles.
Pingback: Quote of the day—Lyle | The View From North Central Idaho