It's just another lie from the GCA's to influence the general public to go along with gun banning. U.S. Representative Doug Collins (R-Ga.), the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, reminded people that calling semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 “assault weapon” is designed to confuse those unfamiliar with firearms. He pointed out that some attribute the creation of the term to anti-gun extremist Josh Sugarmann, the founder and Director the Violence Policy Center. Sugarmann, Collins pointed out, stated, “The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.” https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190929/where-the-house-judiciary-actually-got-things-right
I agree totally with the above. Using the FBI's latest statistics (for 2018 ), rifles were even less of a threat to human life than in 2017. Rifles (all kinds, including semi-automatic) were the instruments used in 297 murders in 2018 (this is lower than the 390 in 2017). This is out of a total of 14,123 murders. For a comparison, knives/cutting instruments were the instruments of 1515 murders, and hands/feet/body were the instruments of 672 murders. There were about 1,000 less murders in 2018 (14,123) than in 2017 (15,195). https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
" Although we all like to think of our homes as sanctuaries of comfort and security, the typical American house harbors some significant safety risks. In fact, every year more than 18,000 Americans die from accidental injuries that take place in the house, making our homes the second-most-common location—behind only cars on the road—of such fatalities. But even amid the worst recession since World War II, homeowners can take steps to reduce these risks, says Meri-K Appy, the president of the Home Safety Council. In an interview with U.S. News, Appy discussed the five leading causes of unintentional home injury deaths and offered simple, cost-effective ways to increase household safety" https://money.usnews.com/money/blog...tal-home-injury-deathsand-how-to-prevent-them
The gun industry was quite happy to market certain guns to civilians as having military features. When gun control advocates complained gun apologists responded by claiming that such features only affected a gun's appearance. The VPC explains: The NRA, the gun industry, the gun press, and other pro-gun “experts” today claim that there is no such thing as a civilian assault weapon. But before the guns came under fire, these same experts enthusiastically described these civilian versions of military weapons as “assault rifles,” “assault pistols,” and “military assault” weapons. For example: In 1982, Guns & Ammo published a book titled Assault Rifles, advertising “Complete Data On The Best Semi-Automatics.”[1] In 1988 Guns & Ammo handgun expert Jan Libourel defined an “assault pistol” simply as, “A high-capacity semi-automatic firearm styled like a submachine gun but having a pistol-length barrel and lacking a buttstock.”[2] Gun magazines also specifically praised the spray fire features of civilian assault weapons. For example, a 1989 Guns & Ammo review of the “Partisan Avenger .45 Assault Pistol” noted that when the gun “is fired rapidly from the hip, its swivelling front grip makes for easy and comfortable control of the recoil,” and that the “forward pistol grip extension of this powerful assault pistol not only helps point it instinctively at the target but goes a long way to controlling the effects of recoil….”[3] Guns & Ammo also found point shooting from the hip to be “surprisingly easy” with the HK 94 9mm Carbine.[4] A 1990 review in the NRA’s American Rifleman of the Sites Spectre HC Pistol said, “A gun like the Spectre is primarily intended for hip-firing….”[5] The same magazine’s 1993 review of the Steyr Mannlicher SPP Pistol reported, “Where the SPP really shines is in firing from the hip….”[6] A cottage industry of accessory suppliers sprang up, all of which targeted ads soliciting owners of civilian “assault weapons.” [7] The gun industry deliberately used the military character of semi-automatic “assault weapons” and the lethality-enhancing utility of their distinctive characteristics as selling points. The German company Heckler & Koch, for example, published ads in 1984 calling their civilian guns “assault rifles” and stressing their military lineage. “The HK 91 Semi-Automatic Assault Rifle from Heckler & Koch…was derived directly from the G3,” a German army weapon, said one ad.[8] Another ad that year described the HK 94 Carbine as “a direct offspring of HK’s renowned family of MP5 submachine guns.”[9] A 1989 Intratec ad said the company’s TEC-9 “clearly stands out among high capacity assault-type pistols.”[10] And in 1982 Magnum Research advertised that the Galil rifle system to which it had import rights “outperformed every other assault rifle.”[11]http://vpc.org/publications/that-wa...pons-from-both-sides-of-their-mouthsmyth-one/
The paid opinions of magazine writers are ultimately nothing more than sales pitches, which do not reflect the reality of any particular matter. This is especially the case when there is not a vested interest in one hundred percent accuracy relating to any particular article. They are not sanctioned by firearm manufacturers, nor are they paid for by firearm manufacturers. These supposed articles do not even mention how the cosmetic features of the firearms they are attached to, serve to make them more lethal than any other firearm that is devoid of such features. This fact is perhaps best represented in the second citation with the following passage: A handgun that possesses a forward pistol grip is legally classified as an any other weapon, as per the federal-level national firearms act. Adding a forward pistol grip to a handgun without first acquiring permission from ATF and registering it with the agency for the purpose of taxation in accordance to national firearm act regulations if a felony-grade offense. Legally it is no different than cutting down the barrel of a shotgun to less than eighteen inches in overall length, which was the legal basis used by the ATF to justify the Waco siege and all actions that occurred during that incident.
The only reason for the ridiculous idea to ban just the assault weapons is so that, should they succeed doing that (they won't), they can then turn around and say, well all assault weapons really are are semiautomatic weapons like the one you have in your closet, so we are going to tweak the AR ban to include your gun collection. Democrats are deplorable liars.
And they are making the most of the distortions and people's fears- preying on ignorance in a plot to gain political power. The people who hold those position usually know very little about guns- just as some people fear all snakes, they fear all guns, especially those which have been labeled with names like "assault". No matter that the military has never even purchased the rifle citizens buy. Ignorance can be dangerous. Guns serve many purposes, including that of being the shield of insurance between freedom and tyranny- and in that, they protect even the people who would trade their freedom for the illusion of security. IF you do not intend to create conditions I would be compelled to resist with force- WHY do you fear my having the ability to defend myself?
You can’t be a liar if you tell the truth, so Dems solve that problem by changing the truth and, walla, problem solved. Besides, everyone knows Truth is manufactured in the Ministry of Truth.
No one cared about rifles until body armor became common. Used to be, the pistol was the revolutionaries weapon of choice due to concealability. With the proliferation of affordible body armor that renders most pistols 'barely-lethal' (statistically speaking), rifles are now the biggest threat to the states power monopoly. That is why the establishment invests so much into propaganda and disinformation against rifles.
There is another aspect to this that I think get too little attention. The deadliest personal weapon is not handgun or rifle- it's the person. The one who refuses to submit to tyrannical government or situations. The degree to which that power can be applied relates directly to the strength and character of the person. Weak people without spirit are very low threat- while strong people with a love for freedom and the proper defense skills are a major one. It's fairly easy to pass laws that gut weak people of those qualities- create the illusion of a danger that only government can protect them from, and they trade their freedom, and their guns, for the false promise of protection. Doesn't work with strong people. When governments try it, the strong point it out and expose the truth. Thus, while such people are a critical asset to a free nation, they are a threat to immoral government. You can identify the morality of people in office by what they support- Do they encourage the people to be strong and independent, or obedient and submissive? Not just in guns; we see that in all aspects of life. They encourage blaming others for what happens in life, and tell us they can fix it. One of the world's biggest lies; with far too many eager to believe it. I've noticed a trend that's been growing for several years now, and that is a swing away from the AR platform and gas-guns to bolt actions; especially, precision bolt actions. Long range rifles. With the advent of technological advances, ballistics calculation can now be done quickly by a layman, on a cell-phone. With a reasonably good rifle and technique that can be learned in an afternoon, the casual hunter used to 50 yards shots on deer can be hitting targets at 1,000 yards the same day. That is competition target range, but is also what can be called "sniper" range. It would not be surprising to see the anti-gunners decide to declare all bolt-action rifles are now sniper rifles, and therefore must be seized. What it all comes down to is those people fear your having the power to defend yourself. Makes you wonder why they are really so afraid of that, unless they intend to make it necessary.
That's the next step after firearm confiscation, first get rid of the guns and then invoke mob rule and get rid of the people that are commonly disliked by the mass's.
This is highly inaccurate. It is solely government gun grabbers that draw the totally false distinction between military styled semiautomatics and other semiautomatics. The reason they do this is to push for "only" bans of military style -- or AR -- features, while they know damn well -- as do you -- that those features are identical on both civilian and military style firearms. If you ban military-style firearms, you effectively ban all semi-automatic firearms, and you know it.
Whereas semi-automatic firearms in general were in existence in the late nineteenth century, thus meaning their existence and private ownership spans three centuries.
Most of the anti-second amendment crowd do not own firearms and can be quickly be convinced to oppose things they don't understand. Assault clips, the dreaded chainsaw underbarrel attachment, etc.
