Half the reason that gun owners tell gun control advocates to go get bent like a soggy pretzel is because they literally have no clue what they are talking about. Most famous is Carolyn McCarthy’s crusade to ban guns with barrel shrouds which she defined as "shoulder things that go up". For the record a barrel shroud is a tubular (or semi-circular) piece of sheet metal that provides stand-off from a potentially hot barrel preventing people from being burned. It is literally a “gun safety device”. Carolyn McCarthy wanted to make guns MORE dangerous not less.
When those of us who have carried arms as a profession, either in harm’s way or in competition hear terms like "high powered assault weapon" (PROTIP- actual assault weapons use low to intermediate power cartridges to facilitate effective suppressive fire on full auto) to Kevin de Leon's famous "Thirty 30 caliber bullet clips a second" speech... we assume you're carrying around an extra chromosome.
Yes- terminology does matter, especially if you want people (at least thinking people) to take you seriously.
Modern semi-auto rifles are not “weapons of war”. The last time a semi-auto rifle was a weapon of war was during the Korean War when soliders and Marines were issued the M-1 Garand rifle which fired from a 8 round clip.
On that note, modern semi-auto rifles use a magazine, not a clip. Clips are used to load magazines and the magazines are used to load the rifle.
If one wishes to look at an actual weapon of war available to US civilians, it is the Remington Model 700. It is a manually operated bolt action rifle, typically fed by a 5 round (or 3 round) internal fixed magazine. Grandpappy’s good ol’ deer rifle, with its shiny wood stock is a weapon of war. The AR-15 is not.
Automatic weapons are also weapons of war. Automatic weapons have been subject to a ridiculous amounts of oversight, and sales of new ones have been prohibited to civilians since 1986. Automatic weapons are not semi automatic rifles. The M249 SAW, the M240B GPMG and the M2HB are automatic weapons. As long as the trigger is held, they continue to fire at a cyclic rate of 600-800 rounds per minute. Semi automatic rifles require a separate pull of the trigger to discharge each round, just like a revolver.
While we are on the topic of 600-800 rounds per minute, semi automatic rifles will not fire that fast. Those figures are for the cyclic rate which is the maximum theoretical rate of fire. For the fully automatic M-16 rifle the maximum effective rate of fire is 120-150 rounds per minute. For the M4 carbine it is 90 rounds per minute. For a semi automatic civilian AR-15 it is 45 rounds per minute.
To take this concept one step further, firing any fully automatic rifle at its maximum effective rate, even if they were generally legal to purchase over the counter, would destroy the rifle within a few minutes. A test was done on one which included firing to destruction. The barrel blew out by the 20th magazine.
The shooter in the above described video was not injured. That is because the AR-15 is not a “high powered rifle” or any variation thereof. It is a low powered rifle. It chambers a cartridge based off of the .222 Remington which was designed to hunt varmints like coyotes and woodchucks. Many States ban its use for big game like deer. A high powered rifle would be something like Grandpappy’s Remington 700 in 30-06 which is one of America’s most popular cartridges for big game (since the .223 is typically not suitable for big game hunting).
With that in mind, why should we expect a carefully constructed law that respects our rights that, at the same time, addresses serious concerns about firearms getting into the wrong hands, when you don't even know what the heck you want to ban or why?
When we have Senator Bill Nelson on CNN expounding on how dangerous the “.223 Magnum that has exceptional military velocity” we point at you and laugh. Literally. We point, then laugh. You’re just making things up at that point. You’re not even TRYING to lie effectively.
If the entire discussion was about dogs- this is what most gun control advocates sound like:
“I don't want to take away dog owners' rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers.”
So what do you propose?
“I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog.”
Wait. What's an attack dog?
“You know what I mean. Like military dogs.”
Huh? Rottweilers aren't military dogs. In fact "military dogs" isn't a thing. You mean like German Shepherds and the Malinois?
“Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn't own fighting dogs.”
I have no idea what dogs you're talking about now.
“You're being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds.”
What the hell are you going on about?
“OK, maybe not actually ::air quotes:: hounds ::air quotes::. Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I'm not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don't need to own.”
Well it is plain to see you can’t…. and don’t expect us to listen to what you have to say.
Blog posts are original content written by 1MMAGC moms and dads.