Rifle or “Assault Weapon”?

As we near the 2016 Election day, I am sad to report that the stupid is surfacing in force on the interwebs.

I’ve had enough run ins with people defending the criminal Clinton’s “I respect the Second Amendment, but…” garbage, which inevitably leads to them trying to convince… someone (I’m not sure who because I’ve forgotten more about firearms and firearms law than they will ever know) that “Assault Weapons are bad mmmkay?”

Look, there is no easy or simple way to say this other than: you’re a buffoon if you believe that an “Assault Weapon” is a thing other than a code word for “guns that look scary, but are no different than other guns that don’t.”

Harsh? Maybe, but anti civil rights gun grabbers seem to have a hard time with the truth.

Look, let me give you an example of why you look like a complete and utter moron when you parrot the “Assault Weapons are too dangerous…” type of drivel that the gun grabbers have been feeding you for 30 years.

This is a basic AR15:

noveskerecon

Super scary assault weapon baby killing murder machine, complete with “shoulder thing that goes up”

Caliber: 5.56 Nato/.223 Remington
Action: Gas operated magazine fed semi-automatic
Cyclic Rate: 800 rounds per minute 
Effective Rate of Fire (RoF): 12-15 rounds per minute 
Semi-automatic Rate of Fire (RoF): 45 rounds per minute
Factory Magazine Capacity: 10-32 round magazine (depending on model configuration)

 

Now this is a Ruger Mini-14:

mini14

Wood stock, hunting rifle (this one is actually a Ranch Rifle model)

Caliber: 5.56 Nato/.223 Remington
Action: Gas operated magazine fed semi-automatic
Cyclic Rate: 750 rounds per minute
Effective Rate of Fire (RoF): 12-15 rounds per minute
Semi-automatic Rate of Fire (RoF): 45 rounds per minute
Factory Magazine Capacity: 5-30 round magazine (depending on model configuration)

Now let’s talk about that for a moment.

Cyclic Rate is a technical measurement, showing a theoretical maximum rate of fire. The Cyclic Rate for both of these rifles is kind of a lie, because neither of those rifles are fully automatic, and the Cyclic Rate is measured in fully automatic fire with an “unlimited magazine” (these are special testing devices that use a machine to continually feed ammunition into the rifle, and they’re about the size of a large desk). The Cyclic Rate for both of these rifles was measured on their fully automatic variants (the AR15 used the M16A2 info and the Mini-14 used the AC-556 info). As applied to these rifles the Cyclic Rate is simply the measurement of how fast the action can cycle in one minute under ideal test conditions on average.

The Effective Rate of Fire is the rate that these rifles can sustain firing without mechanical malfunction or meltdown over an extended period of time (I believe the testing criteria is one hour of sustained fire).

Semi-automatic Rate of Fire is measured by wildly pulling the trigger as fast as possible, without any kind of aiming, while changing factory capacity magazines as needed. This is nowhere near real world effective rates of fire when requiring aiming.

Factory Magazine Capacity is the quantity of cartridges that can be held in the magazines that ship from the factory. Both are available from the factory with 30 round magazines, both are available from the factory with 10 round magazines.

Effective Rate of Fire is the key performance metric when evaluating the capabilities of a weapon for use in fighting.

Functionally these are the same weapon. Functionally they are identical other than the mechanical design of the action.

The Ar15 is often called a “weapon of war” by the gun grabbers, but this is simply not true. The Ar15 is not issued to any of our 2,000,000+ military personnel.

Still feel like “Assault Weapons” are evil and rifles are ok?

These are also Ruger Mini-14 rifles:

These are functionally the same rifle.

These are functionally the same rifle, cosmetic changes make three of those “assault weapons” in California.

This is also a Ruger Mini-14:

tacticool-miniSame exact rifle as above with cosmetic changes only.

You’re basically saying that I am not allowed to paint my car, or put aftermarket accessories on it that you don’t like.

And this is also an AR15:

California compliant "featureless" AR15

California compliant “featureless” AR15, 100% legal despite California having an enforced “Assault Weapons” ban for more than 25 years.

When you advocate banning “assault weapons” you are saying one of two things:

  1. I don’t like scary black guns, so ban those despite them being mechanically identical to ones I’m ok with. Or..
  2. I don’t know anything about guns other than we need to ban them all, but I’m too much of a coward to just come out and say it, and also I think gun owners are too stupid to realize what my actual goal is.

I assure you, us gun owners are not stupid, and we will not entertain your silly antics. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

END

Advertisements

California SB 249: I have no idea what a magazine lock is, but we must ban them!

A couple of weeks ago, the CBS affiliate in San Francisco ran a bit on the “bullet button” (correctly known as a magazine lock), and how it allows Californians to “circumvent” the state’s (full retard) Assault Weapons Ban.

Now, one man has decided that we must ban this terrible menace. Even if he doesn’t know what exactly it is.

California Senate Bill 249 purports to ban magazine locks in California, but what it actually does is… something else entirely.

I’m not even going to try to translate what the intent of this law is, here is the summary from the actual legislation:

This bill would, commencing July 1, 2013, and with certain exceptions, prohibit any person from importing, making, selling, loaning, transferring, or possessing any conversion kit, as defined, designed to convert certain firearms with a fixed magazine into firearms with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and other features making the firearm an assault weapon and would make violations subject to criminal penalties.

What? This is already illegal.

As far as I can puzzle out (because “conversion kit” is not defined anywhere in the legislation), this bill would apparently make it double super illegaller to manufacture an “Assault Weapon” in California.

Maybe we need some context here.

So San Francisco CBS affiliate runs a story on the “bullet button” (which is a brand name), and Yee gets his panties in a bunch. He responds by “introducing” legislature to ban… something. Here is a quote from the good “senator”:

“It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear, there is no debate, no discussion,” said Yee.

Ok, I’m going to take major issue with that statement, but I’ll wait while he finishes:

“What I am proposing is to essentially prevent any mechanism that would allow the conversion of an assault weapon into a way that you can fire these magazines upon magazines without effort,” he said.

So, while he has just clearly demonstrated that he has no idea what a magazine lock is or does, we must ban… something.

Here’s a little history on the magazine lock:

In 1999 California passed a bill (SB 23) known as the “Assault Weapon Control Act”, which basically attempts to ban a class of firearms based on look. because it is a law, it attempts to define these firearms based on features, since banning by name (as had been done in 1989 with the Roberti-Roos “Assault Weapon Ban”) was injuncted by the courts. This led to a quagmire for California gun owners, who had to figure out if their firearms fit one of the convoluted definitions of a banned “Assault Weapon” in California.

So an enterprising California gun owner invented the “Bullet Button” magazine lock, which would allow certain firearms to comply with California’s convoluted Assault Weapons legislation. Basically this device alters the magazine release so that the firearm will accept a magazine, but to release the magazine you must use a tool (which could be the tip of a bullet on some models). This alters the rifle from having the “ability to accept a detachable magazine” to being a firearm with a “fixed magazine” which  is defined in California Law as requiring a tool to remove.

This contraption was invented to comply with California’s asinine firearms laws.

The California Department Of Justice has to date refused to issue a bulletin to the state’s 58 District Attorneys stating that this device makes the rifles compliant with California law, and legal. The CalGuns Foundation has filed a motion with the courts for this very thing, and it has so far been denied. However, as part of that case the California Department Of Justice has stated on paper and on record that an AR with a magazine release and magazine capable of holding 10 rounds or less is perfectly legal.

Yet, “senator” Yee seems to think that these devices allow one to “fire these magazines upon magazines without effort”, which is just plain wrong.

Now to his earlier gem of a quote.

“It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear, there is no debate, no discussion,” said Yee.

I don’t know what country Yee thinks he’s in, but this is America jack. It is most certainly not important that individuals in California be barred these weapons, and for you to claim that no debate or discussion is allowed simply demonstrates that you do not understand the laws or customs of the country you are representing.

That statement alone should motivate people to vote this sorry excuse for a man out of office. You don’t get to dictate to us, you are nothing but a servant.

Now the CBS affiliate that ran the news story which “started” all of this is claiming that Yee has introduced SB249 because of the story they ran. I hate to disappoint you misguided liberals, but Yee introduced this legislation in February of 2011. It’s been voted on and rejected twice.

It’s a terribly written piece of legislation. The only thing it seems to do is create a situation where the state or local DA can declare your firearm a “public nuisance” and then confiscate and destroy it. It also creates a situation where you can be sued in a civil court by the state or DA for $300 for the first “conversion kit” and $100 per additional “conversion kit” rather than being charged criminally.

So it’s all about money then? Well that’s not altogether surprising, it usually is.

While I don’t see this “law” being passed any time soon (at least in its current form), or really doing anything if it is, the CalGuns Foundation has already set their sights on it should it be passed into law. If you’re a gun owner in California, and are unhappy with the firearms laws or potential firearms laws in this state, make a donation to the Second Amendment Foundation, or the CalGuns Foundation, they are the ones working to change things for you.

Nomenclature: Of clips and magazines.

In 2007, Tucker Carlson interviewed Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) about her proposed bill that would have basically reinstated the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban (a clip of the interview can be viewed here). What follows is my transcription of part of the interview:

Tucker Carlson: Do you know what a barrel shroud is?

Carolyn McCarthy: I actually don’t know what a barrel shroud is.

Tucker Carlson: Oh ok, because it’s in your legislation.

Carolyn McCarthy: I think, believe it’s a shoulder thing that goes up.

Tucker Carlson: No, it’s not.

Prior to this snippet of the conversation, the interviewer asked that same question twice. Rep. McCarthy tried to change the subject twice, bringing up that the legislation would have “more importantly… banned the high capacity clips…”.

One of the issues that I have with this is that we have a politician here who clearly has no idea of what she is trying to ban. The other issue is that every single firearm related term that she used in the entire interview was used incorrectly, clearly demonstrating that she doesn’t know what she is talking about. Yet she expects to be taken seriously.

The really sad thing here is that the terms are not vague, they are precisely descriptive. The “barrel shroud = shoulder thing that goes up” issue aside, nearly all of the proponents of gun control laws get the “clip vs. magazine” thing wrong. Every time. I also hear these two terms used interchangeably by young children, and (sadly) people that call themselves “journalists”.

As it relates to firearms, the term “clip” is defined as follows:

  • clip is a device that is used to store multiple rounds of ammunition together as a unit, ready for insertion into the magazine or cylinder of a firearm.

As it relates to firearms, the term “magazine” is defined as follows:

  • magazine is an ammunition storage and feeding device within or attached to a repeating firearm.

Here is a picture so that you can better understand why these terms are not interchangeable:

Clearly these are two completely different parts (hence the different names).

Frequently it is argued that the terms are used interchangeably. No, no they are not. Not by people that know what they are talking about. You wouldn’t call a pencil a pen, would you? Or a keyboard a typewriter?

When you use the incorrect terms to describe part of something that you are discussing, it makes you seem like a fool. Especially when you are using incorrect terms to describe something that you are trying to ban (if you don’t even know the name of a thing, how can you expect to be taken seriously when you demand that it be made illegal?). Especially when it is so undeniably easy to learn the correct terms.