This thread was inspired from
THIS THREAD over in the TFP weapons forum, in which I had posted some pictures of AR15 rifles in different colors, including pink (!?!) and baby blue.
Another member posted that he was concerned that a child might be attracted to the guns because of the bright non colors.
So I decided to write the following, which will eventually be turned into an essay for a college english challenge.
----------------------------------------
Pink Rifles and the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994
-© 2004 by Lebell
It was a silly conversation, which boiled down to this: “assault rifles” shouldn’t be pink, because they might be “too attractive” to children. In otherwords, a pink gun wasn’t “scary looking” enough. But to me, those conversations illustrate perfectly the frustration that AR15 and other "assault weapon” owners feel on a daily basis: That the rifles they like to shoot are demonized not for reasons of unusual function or lethality, but simply because of looks.
In case you didn’t know, the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 affects certain brand names of guns (mostly rifles) by name or by features, these being a detachable magazine and 2 or more of the following:
a bayonnette lug
a protruding pistol grip
a flash hider
a grenade launcher
The average person (especially if they come from an area where guns are not common), really does not know this and has no clue what makes these rifles different, why they look like they do, or really, anything at all about them. They have to rely on what they read and hear in the news to make their judgements on them and the laws that are being passed regarding them.
This is unfortunate, because the newspapers and news stations are for the most part, getting
their their information from organizations like Handgun Control Inc. (now the Violence Policy Center), the Brady Campaign, and the Million Mom March, which deliberately put out conflicting information and deliberate falsehoods concerning these weapons.
Some examples include:
- “assault weapons” should be banned because they are used by criminals to kill cops (fact: assault weapons are used in less than 1% of crimes)
- The 1994 ban should be extended because gun crime has gone down (fact: since the features banned are cosmetic, there have been NO reductions in sales of these “assault weapons”, since manufacturers just removed the offending features until the guns were again legal. So if there was a reduction in crime, it must be attributable to other factors.)
- “Assault weapons” are bullet hoses (fact: no, they are not. The “assault weapons” they want to ban are functionally NO DIFFERENT from any other semi-automatic weapon. That is, one trigger pull, one shot. So if an “assault weapon” is a bullet hose, then so is dad’s semi-auto hunting rifle.)
- The DC snipers used a Bushmaster AR15 assault rifle (Fact: this is true. What they don’t tell you is that John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo’s FIRST weapon of choice was a bolt action Remington model 700 rifle, which is the same model used by US Army snipers. They stole the Bushmaster after they almost got caught in Washinton State and had to abandon the Remington. In otherwords, it wasn’t the rifle that was dangerous, it was Malvo and Muhammad.)
- Assault weapons can put 12 bullets in a cop in 2 seconds. (see below)
Now on this last one, I know of NO ONE who can take an AR15 and put 12 bullets in ANYTHING in 2 seconds, let alone on target. What makes this difficult (if not impossible) is again the fact that the rifles they want to ban are semi-automatic.
Now I should mention at this point that historically, a true “assault weapon” has meant a select fire rifle, that is, one that can be set for automatic or semi-automatic operation.
But the anti-gun groups don’t tell you this, because the rifles they want to ban are ALL
semi-automatic, again meaning, one trigger pull, one shot only. So in otherwords, they really want to ban any gun that can put “12 bullets in a cop”, which must mean all semi-automatic rifles, including your dad's semi-automatic hunting rifle.
But they can’t say this.
While their leaders have admitted it in the past that the reason that they want to ban all guns, their losses in past elections (especially the 2000 presidential race) have taught them that America isn’t ready to give up it’s guns yet. So they had to develop a new strategy, which is to ban scary looking guns first. Yes, you read right.
They want to ban these guns because they LOOK scary.
Not because they are more dangerous.
Not because statistically they cause more crime (they are actually involved in less than 1% of all shootings).
But because they LOOK scary.
So after getting rid of the evil "black assault rifle" (a term by the way, which keeps getting expanded in scope), their strategy is to ban all long guns that can take more than a single shot at a time and then finally, "sniper" rifles, which means all long guns.
Then they want to ban all calibers over a certain size, eventually working their way down to all handguns.
They know this can work, because this is how it was done in England.
(With a little googling, you can find the quotes from people like Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein, and the folks over at Handgun Control Inc (now the Violence Policy Center) saying these things.)
And the strategy is working.
The American public can’t define what an “assault weapon” is. I’ve had friends question why anyone would need an “Uzi” or an “AK47” (both of which are fully automatic weapons, which have been tightly regulated since 1934).
The courts have repeatedly stated that there may be reasonable restrictions to a right, such as the famous example of not being able to yell “fire!” in a crowded theater. But can anyone begin to argue that it is reasonable to restrict a gun based solely upon it’s appearance?
The only conclusion possible is that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban is bad law and it should be allowed to expire, with no tears shed.