The NYT points out that the assault weapons nonsense is a myth
So, why did they lie about it for years?
The NRA says we should probably be leery of these sudden changes in anti-gun people.
14 Responses to “The NYT points out that the assault weapons nonsense is a myth”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
September 14th, 2014 at 2:41 pm
They’re just switching tactics. Now they’re going to claim that wanting to own a firearm is a form of mental illness and thus disqualifying a person from owning one.
September 14th, 2014 at 6:34 pm
Rubbish – the term was coined by the military to distinguish a specific type of fully-automatic weapon and has been around for years – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
What the loonies have been doing is classifying self-loading weapons as being in that category.
September 14th, 2014 at 7:24 pm
Assault Weapon is a nonsense term invented by some urinalist to demonize the EBR/MSR. Assault Rifle is the correct term, the translation of Sturm Gewehr, the name bestowed by Hitler himself on the StG44, which was previously to be the MP43. /pedantry
September 14th, 2014 at 9:14 pm
“Assault” is either a criminal offense or an offensive military tactic. The semi-automatic rifles labeled “assault weapons” are not, but are very effective self-defense weapons. Self defense is a basic human right implied in the 2nd Amendment and certainly included in the broadly inclusive 9th Amendment. Such a right is a pre-existing one of the people and is thus excluded from any violation or infringement by the government.
September 15th, 2014 at 12:05 am
DAE remember a little group called “Handgun Control Inc.”? This is what the brady bunch called themselves before Sarah Brady came along [1].
Their “mission statement” clearly stated that they were only interested in regulating handguns. Because “handguns were used by criminals.” Looking back from today’s landscape, the idea of banning defensive use of handguns seems ridiculous, but it was a wedge issue they though they could use to divide (mostly) rural hunters from the rest of the firearms community.
HCI needed a name change when their tactics shifted, and lucky for them Jim came along. The chief tactic during this era was using the made up term “assault weapon” as another wedge issue between the small segment of enthusiasts and the rest of the firearms community. That rifles of any kind, let alone “assault weapons” were only used in a tiny fraction of crimes was immaterial. Never get facts in the way of “divide and conquer” had to be their mantra. The zenith of their efforts was probably the 1994 AWB. Of course this ended up blowing up in their faces as an entire generation of young adults played video games filled with forbidden firearms, which they almost own when they came of age if they settled for silly cosmetic changes and thumb-hole stocks. Import restrictions and the long dead AR-15 patents contributed to the AR-15 becoming America’s most popular rifle.
So their newest tactic is “universal registration of inanimate objects.” Who could object to that (except of course for every student of history who realizes that a central database of all firearms legally owned is a common precursor for a future confiscation law)? Expect a name change to go along with the re-branding.
[1] Poor Jim was nothing more than a propaganda tool to them. RIP James.
September 15th, 2014 at 10:04 am
This isn’t a tactic switch. This is a fundamental change of focus.
The goal is still the same–complete disarmament. They learned from the anti-smoking campaign and their failed AWB that their problem isn’t that there’s too many guns, or the wrong type, it’s that there’s too many gun owners.
They’ll never win as long as there are 80 million gun owners and 5 million NRA members. But if you make it more difficult to become a gun owner, (NFA anyone?) you’ll get less of them. And then the fewer there are, the easier it is to just ignore the rest of them and do whatever you want. Just ask gun owners in England and Australia.
September 15th, 2014 at 12:07 pm
They have just figured out that blood dancing and the evil black rifle meme isn’t working.
Expect some different form of spaghetti to be thrown at the wall to see if it sticks.
September 15th, 2014 at 12:17 pm
“So, why did they lie about it for years?”
Had to wait for the latest major gun control push to fail.
September 15th, 2014 at 12:41 pm
I think wizardpc has it.
Note that they’re still big on FOID cards, training requirements, and bans on “transferes” that include loaning a gun at the range.
These are all limits that bite hardest on someone looking to get their *first* gun.
September 15th, 2014 at 1:57 pm
More on making it hardest on first time buyers.
http://www.pagunblog.com/2014/09/15/brady-attack-on-pennsylvania-gun-dealers/
September 15th, 2014 at 2:18 pm
I have to agree with the push continuing to be background checks/registration, its the only thing that has traction.
Going after handguns is a non-starter, they couldn’t get controls passed back in the ’80s and there are now 10 million plus licensed concealed carriers, many of the new ones in IL and CA. Purchase/possession permit numbers are increasing as well, even in states like NJ and MD. Those are mostly for home defense handguns.
There is no getting the handgun genie back in the bottle. UBC’s, and the registration required to make them work, are their last real hope.
September 15th, 2014 at 7:03 pm
>This isn’t a tactic switch. This is a fundamental change of focus.
That word “tactic”. I do not think it means what you think it means. Otherwise spot on.
September 15th, 2014 at 8:14 pm
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactic_(method)#Strategy_versus_tactic
I should have said “This isn’t a mere tactic switch” to have been more clear. I thought everyone understood the difference 🙂
September 16th, 2014 at 1:23 pm
They went after specific guns and specific gun features for so long, they got many of US going along with the idea that PROHIBITED PERSONS should be the focus. Some “pro gun” folks EMBRACED the notion of mental screening and background checks. I heard several people on the “right” calling for such nonsense. So what should we expect? Now we’ll be accused of being hypocrites if we call for less screening. It think the antis have something here. We gave it to them.
If they can establish that the exercise of a constitutionally enumerated right can require pre screening and official approval, and they pretty well have, then other rights will be subject to the same things.