Lying With Pictures

I was perusing the Violence Policy Center website recently, and it came to my attention that the very same folks who touted the 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban as "essential" to reduce gun crime, now claim that it is the fault of the MANUFACTURERS that the guns they sought to ban, based upon cosmetics and "evil looking features" are still on the market, minus the "evil features" they said were so dangerous, like flash suppressors, folding shoulder stocks, and bayonet lugs. I guess I could see their point, if they would just publish those darn statistics on the plethora of drive-by bayonettings that were occurring in the early 1990's, stemmed by the strongly-worded, carefully written "Assault Weapons Ban" written specifically to prevent such dangerous criminal behavior.

Actually, it wasn't so carefully written. The VPC people are more spin doctors than researchers, unless of course you categorize Michael Bellesiles, discredited author of "Arming America", as their shining example of what passes as "research" in the VPC. How insightful were his conclusions based upon all those notes he lost in that mysterious office flood. How amazing it was that no one else could find the records he claims to have found in the halls of records of the locations he claims to have been. Perhaps the VPC also employs the Amazing Kreskin?

Now, the VPC has a whole new comedic section they're trying to sell the gullible public with a straight face called "Officer Down", which at first glance appears to be a tribute to slain officers, but is instead a way to take a poke at the very law they so carefully pushed through back in 1994.

Let's go down their published list, shall we? Let's see, there were a whopping FIFTEEN "assault weapon officer slayings" between 1998 and 2001, according to the VPC. Fifteen whopping incidents in the space of FOUR YEARS! (Reference: http://www.vpc.org/studies/officecont.htm).

One minor detail which I guess the VPC didn't expect anyone to notice except someone knowledgeable about firearms (at least I didn't get ALL of my education from "research" of their quality, nor solely from Hollywood and their honestly-portrayed weapons depictions, functions, and uses) to notice that ALMOST EVERY EXAMPLE of an "assault weapon" that they picture has one thing in common:

ALMOST EVERY RIFLE PICTURED IS LEGAL. Not only legal as in pre-1994, but legal, as in NOW, even AFTER they have no bayonet lug, no flash suppressor, no handle that protrudes conspicuously below the action...every rifle is disqualified from the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban because they DON'T HAVE THE COMBINATION OF EVIL FEATURES the VPC was so ADAMANT about GETTING RID OF!

Gee guys, I guess the VPC was wrong. Take a flash suppressor off a rifle, it's still a rifle, isn't it? How about that.

The founding fathers had a wonderful phrase for this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident."

What's even more interesting is that, of the pictures of firearms that AREN'T legal, at least two are pistols in pre-ban configuration, and one of the pictures is of a MACHINE GUN, a totally different weapon than the one to which they refer. Deliberate? Or just stupid?

January 27, 1998, Portland Oregon. "Assault Weapon" in question: Norinco SKS 7.62mm rifle.

Reasons why it isn't an Assault Weapon: 1) No protruding pistol grip. 2) No flash suppressor.

Conclusion: It's a rifle. It uses rifle ammunition. It shoots bullets. It does no "assaulting" on its own. Big whoop.

April 25, 1998, Millbrae, California. "Assault Weapon" in question: Armalite M151A[sic] .223 rifle.

First off, the obvious: It's not an M151A, it's an M15A2. While this is technically just a typo, it just goes to show the weight that accuracy has with the Violence Policy Center. I guess when you're so free with the facts anyway, proofreading is pointless, hmm?

Reasons why it isn't an Assault Weapon: 1) No Flash Suppressor. 2) No Bayonet Lug (Remember, those darned drive-by bayonettings! Do you feel safer? Yeah, so do I.). 3) No telescoping or folding shoulder stock.

Let's talk about that third item, the shoulder stock, for just a moment. I can only guess that the reason why a telescoping or folding stock is such a no-no is because with it, theoretically, you can conceal a rifle that's almost forty inches long (That's more than a YARD for you VPC-educated folks) by telescoping the stock down about a whopping eight inches or so or so making it a (please tell me the VPC didn't teach you math, too!) nice, concealable thirty-two inches! Wow...that's really small! I mean, if you're six-foot-four, with a REALLY LONG trenchcoat...you might only get two or three inches of barrel sticking out the bottom! If you were in a room ONLY with VPC-educated people, you just might get away with it. Wow. I'm so glad the VPC caught this; I'm feeling safer and safer by the minute.

And before you folks who don't know the difference start pointing at that THING on the end of the muzzle (Is it a Flash Suppressor? *Gasp!*), please allow me to educate you. That muzzle device, as published in the advertisement used by the VPC to illustrate their "example" firearm, is what's called a Muzzle Brake, or Recoil Check. It redirects the pressure from the fired cartridge after the bullet leaves the barrel, from frontwards, straight out the barrel, to backwards and sideways to counteract the kick of the weapon, much like a thrust-reverser on a jet engine. With that pressure re-direction comes NOISE re-direction as well, WITHOUT any flash suppression WHAT SO EVER. So now, with this rifle, you may cheerfully annoy folks to either side of you at the range with both more noise AND brighter flash in their faces! What fun! But hey, it's safer than a flash suppressor, right?

Another thing I'd like to note is that even IF the pictured rifle WERE an "assault weapon" (which it isn't), it'd be perfectly OK for it to be that way because it's being marketed to LAW ENFORCEMENT, which, as we all know, can take evil, wicked, mean, nasty "assault weapons" and turn them into "tools for law enforcement" simply by stuffing them into the hands of one of our solid boys in blue with the badge. That badge must have magical weapon-modifying powers to take something so evil and sinister that it must be removed from the hands of Ordinary Folks and placed into the hands of Specially Trained Professionals, where it becomes benign and friendly.

Conclusion: Police officers can be killed with Law Enforcement Tools, just like anybody else, which means that this BS about cops making them safer by magic just ain't so. Sad, but true.

May 29, 1998, Cortez, Colorado. "Assault Weapon" in question: SKS 7.62mm rifle.

Reason why it isn't an "assault weapon": No protruding pistol grip. Doesn't matter what else it has, if it doesn't have that evil protruding pistol grip down there, nothing else matters. Hey, I didn't write this stupid law, but I'm pretty sure those folks at the VPC had more than a few fingers in it.

Now, this SKS is closer to a portrayal of a factory configuration weapon EXCEPT for that big banana magazine sticking out of its bottom. That's an aftermarket MODIFICATION, which makes it look all evil and militant. Note the bayonet. Not just a bayonet LUG, mind you, but the WHOLE BAYONET, just sitting there, serenely, folded beneath the barrel of the weapon, JUST WAITING to be used to stick some innocent pedestrian waiting for the crossing signal on a corner somewhere in a gang-related drive-by bayonetting. Evil. Icky.

But just adding a magazine doesn't make it an "assault weapon" in the eyes of the law. If you listen to the VPC, they're claiming the manufacturers are taking advantage of the "loopholes" in the law. There are no "loopholes"...just BAD LAW. And they want MORE of this? How SAFE do they want me to be? I'm already brimming with safety now! Enough already!

Conclusion: "A long magazine doth not an assault weapon make." It's still a rifle. Big whoop. Next!

July 7, 1998, San Benito, Texas. "Assault Weapon" in question: AR-15 .223 rifle.

Well, at least they got that one right. Only Colt's Manufacturing may use the designation "AR-15" for this particular pattern of rifle, though AR-15 is the household name for it, like Kleenex and Band-Aid...Yes, it's the civilian version of the military's M16 series rifle. "Civilian" meaning that it's not a machine gun. It just LOOKS like one.

Reason why it isn't an "assault weapon": 1) No muzzle device at all, no flash suppressor, no muzzle brake, no nothing. Looks kinda goofy doesn't it? Gotta love that 1994 law! 2) No telescoping stock. That's a solid A2 stock with a little trapdoor in its base where you can BARELY stuff a cleaning kit. Kinda handy. Not real good for concealment, though. 3) No EVIL BAYONET LUG. This rifle is not an "assault weapon." This rifle is safe. No one may use it for any nefarious deeds involving a bayonet unless another high-tech attachment method, such as duct tape, is used.

Conclusion: At least the guys who used REAL AR-15's had some semblance of taste and bought Colt's...but if they're criminals, who knows, they MIGHT have STOLEN them! Gosh, I wonder. But at the VPC they probably don't wonder about such plebian things. They have SAFETY to be concerned with! It's interesting to note that the VPC's report depicts negative "mental stability" indicators and involvement with drugs around this rifle. The picture is becoming clearer: If I buy a Colt's AR-15, I could turn into a psychotic cocaine-junkie and go on a shooting spree!

Actually, if I bought a genuine Colt's AR-15, I couldn't AFFORD a cocaine habit. Have you PRICED one of these things lately? I'd be resorted to snorting talcum powder and when I go to the rehab clinic, I'd have to confess to being addicted to "placebo."

November 29, 1998, Los Angeles, California. "Assault Weapon" in question: Ruger Mini-14 .223 rifle.

A note about the glorious People's Republic of Kalifornistan: They don't HAVE any "assault weapons" there, because they ALREADY HAVE a much more stringent ban on those ugly black rifles than the REST of the country, so now people who go on shooting sprees must choose less-evil-looking substitutes for the "real thing", such as this Mini-14, except for one, minor detail. The rifle portrayed IS NOT A MINI-14 AT ALL, but a Law Enforcement AC-556 MACHINE GUN.

Reasons why it isn't an assault weapon: 1) No protruding pistol grip. That's it. Without it, you can have a flash suppressor, a bayonet lug, AND a telescoping or folding stock! Wow. So it really isn't all those OTHER evil features, is it? It's the PISTOL GRIP!!! What's kind of frightening is the fact that THIS rifle is actually a REAL Assault Rifle by the technical sense of the term. The rifle pictured here, as those "in the know" will note immediately from the tell-tale SELECTOR plainly visible toward the rear of the receiver, is a relatively rare selective-fire (meaning both semi AND full auto) version of the more common Mini-14. They are NOT the same thing. They are similar, sort of the way a Volkswagen is similar to a Porsche. If you drive around in a VW and call it a Porsche, people are going to think you are an ill-informed idiot, unless of course, you work for the VPC and are talking about guns. Ruger manufactures the AC-556 rifles in VERY limited quantities for law enforcement and government use only, and have since 1986, since the AC-556 law enforcement carbines are MACHINE GUNS and ALREADY regulated under the Gun Control Acts (though it's one body of law) of 1934, 1968, and 1986.

So, let's get this straight; The VPC, already free with the facts, portrays a picture of a MACHINE GUN and calls it an "assault weapon". I noted that on each page, there is a disclaimer on the bottom: "Each weapon is representative of the brand or model of assault weapon and is not a picture of the specific weapon used in the shooting described in the narrative."

Well, good to know that. That pretty much says "We can misrepresent the facts to you all we want because we're telling you they're not facts."

While the VPC lacks in their research department, I see they're pretty well up in their legal department. Good to know. I was starting to think these folks were just stupid. Now I know it's a matter of priority.

Conclusion: When faced with a shortage of things to ban, make some more up by mislabeling old things and calling them something else. Simple, really.

January 10, 1999, Oakland, California. "Assault Weapon" in question: The MAK-90 or SA85 7.62mm rifle.

Reasons why it isn't an "assault weapon": 1) No protruding pistol grip. 2) No Flash Suppressor. 3) No Bayonet Lug.

Not only that, it's got a short stubby little magazine. Gosh, that's just a rifle. How can ANYONE call THAT an "assault weapon"? It sure doesn't LOOK like one, and according to the law, it ISN'T one.

Have you noticed that the Protruding Pistol Grip seems to be a recurring theme? I'm starting to get scared. I mean, I have a Black & Decker drill at home with a pistol grip. Do I have to register it as an assault weapon? Oh, no, wait, no I don't...it doesn't have a bayonet lug OR a flash suppressor. I'm still safe.

Conclusion: This one isn't even close. It has NO evil features whatsoever, not even a long, evil-looking "banana magazine", yet the VPC continues to INSIST that it's an "assault weapon"?

Maybe those VPC folks bought some Colt's AR-15 rifles, strictly for "research purposes only" of course, and, unaware of the side effects of AR-15 ownership, became mentally-unstable cocaine junkies.

April 8, 1999, Orange, New Jersey. "Assault weapon" in question: TEC-9 9mm pistol.

Please note, boys and girls, that it says "pistol"...not "rifle." So now, an "assault weapon" is also a type of HANDGUN?

Since they insist on changing the definitions to fit their "facts", I have no choice but to play along for now.

Technically, the TEC-9 IS CLASSIFIED AS AN ASSAULT WEAPON because it is a handgun over 50 ounces which has a magazine well separate from the pistol grip. In plain English, it means it's heavy, you don't shove the magazine up the grip like you do an "ordinary" handgun like a police-issue Sig or Glock. Also, there's something in the law that talks about a "barrel shroud" which facilitates two-handed firing by protecting the shooter's offhand from being burned by the hot barrel (if he's stupid enough to grip it forward of the magazine). See the top row of pictured TEC-9 pistols? The part with all the holes is the offensive "barrel shroud".

But what about the bottom row? Oh yeah, threads. Barrel threads. It's not enough to have a flash suppressor on the barrel. Even having a barrel that's THREADED TO TAKE a flash suppressor is illegal. That's so some industrious young American Citizen can't just go out and buy a Flash Suppressor and modify his own property to suit his taste by adding an evil feature. Oooh, boogedy boogedy! Can't have people customizing anything these days, can we? T'aint safe, I tell ya!

Does it MATTER that the TEC-9 in the configuration pictured hasn't been available since the ban went into effect in 1994? Does it MATTER that the new pistols DON'T HAVE those evil features and are now under the 50 ounce limit?

DOES IT MATTER that they're telling you about one thing and showing you another?

June 12, 1999, Orange County, California. "Assault weapon" in question: MAK-90 or SA85 7.62mm rifle.

Reasons why it isn't an "assault weapon": Say it with me now, children: 1) No protruding pistol grip. 2) No Flash Suppressor. 3) No Bayonet Lug.

This advertisement says that the SA-85 is a "Hungarian AK-47". Funny, doesn't look much like one. Doesn't an AK-47 have that long banana magazine, and the protruding pistol grip, and a flash suppressor, and a bayonet lug?

Or, more accurately, doesn't a REAL AK-47 have select fire? Isn't a REAL AK-47 actually a MACHINE GUN which is actually regulated the same way that Ruger AC-556 is and has been since 1934? Right, right. It's all about the names, isn't it? It's the Name Game.

"Yeah, bought me this here Porsche Passat. Got a GREAT deal on it, too...but hey, it's a Porsche...it's worth it!"

Conclusions: When faced with a shortage of things to ban...c'mon, sing along with me now, you know the words...

January 27, 2000, Lexington, North Carolina. "Assault Weapon" in question: Maadi 7.62mm rifle.

Reasons why it isn't an "assault weapon"(This chorus is getting boring.): 1) No protruding pistol grip. 2) No Flash Suppressor. 3) No Bayonet Lug.

What is a Maadi 7.62mm rifle? It's a rifle. It uses a magazine. It shoots bullets.

Some of the smarter children will recognize the 7.62mm after many of these "assault weapons"...is 7.62mm a Special Assault Weapon Caliber or something?

Not really. Falling under "what they DON'T tell you" (and possibly falling under "because they don't know/care" or under "what they aren't interested in telling you") is that 7.62mm is simply the METRIC designation for...

...The more-commonly-recognized caliber of .308! How about that? Yep, that's right. .308 of an inch, is the same as 7.62 millimeters. But wait, that's not confusing enough...there are at LEAST three different types of .308 ammunition that are NOT interchangeable, their only similarity is the diameter of the bullet. That's it. Not much else. Not muzzle velocity (speed of the bullet) not grain weight (how heavy the bullet is, which indicates how fast it loses speed and thus, power), not cartridge configuration (Whether it was designed before 1900 and was primarily a black-powder cartridge, whether it was designed in 1906, or what size powder charge the cartridge has, which again, indicates a relative velocity and power). Way back when, .30 caliber was pretty much the same as .308. Yup, the .30-30 is technically a 7.62mm projectile. So is the .30-06. And so is the .308 Winchester (Also known as 7.62 NATO or 7.62x51), and so is the 7.62 Russian Rimmed (Used by the Mosin-Nagant bolt-action rifle, only barely classifiable as an "assault weapon" if you are in the year 1940 or before), and so is 7.62x39 (also known as 7.62 Kalashnikov), which is the true caliber of the AK-47, the SKS, the Maadi, the Mini-30, the SA85, and a dozen other knock-offs of former-soviet-union-designed rifles and at least one Colt's AR variant.

How does this relate, you may ask? Have you noticed the lack of this technical information in the VPC literature? You're not interested? You will be when they, using YOUR opinion about the "evil 7.62mm caliber" BAN that projectile diameter.

Overnight, that ancient lever-action .30-30 in the attic with grandpa's things becomes an "Assault Weapon." because, technically, it's 7.62mm.

The Upside: Now YOU, like so many other psychotic, cocaine-addicted citizens in this country who now own Colt's AR-15's, are the proud owner of a newly-designated "assault weapon" and should immediately take steps to become mentally unstable and take up the apprpropriate cocaine habit.

The Downside: Now you're a criminal, when you weren't one before. Not that big a deal if you're a psychotic cocaine junkie to begin with, but what if you weren't?

August 3, 2000, San Marcos, Texas. "Assault Weapon" in question: Ruger Mini-14 .223 rifle

Reason Why It Isn't An Assault Weapon: No Pistol Grip. But it's got that bayonet lug and flash suppressor. Oooh, scary scary! And it's got a BLACK PLASTIC STOCK! And a BRIGHT SHINY MAGAZINE STICKING OUT THE BOTTOM! Flee! Flee! Run for your lives! That weapon's gonna "assault" us any minute now! Really! Don't reason! Don't THINK! Just RUN! Run and BE SCARED!

Well, at least they got the picture right. That really IS a Mini-14, NOT the AC-556 from above. Can't tell the difference? That's okay, obviously neither can the VPC. So THAT's what makes them significantly qualified to advocate nationwide firearms policy! Blatant ignorance!

Wow, if that's all you need to write law...we need to get rid of all those SMART congressmen and put in a bunch of ignorant folks...

March 29, 2001, San Antonio, Texas. "Assault Weapon" in question: M-11 assault pistol.

Isn't it interesting that the firearm's manufacturer, Cobray, doesn't refer to it as an "assault pistol"? That's because this term is made up by those smart, studious folks at the VPC. I guess that's what they do instead of the research they should be doing.

Reasons Why It Isn't An Assault Weapon: Well, for pistols, the criteria are a litle different. The M-11 doesn't have a magazine separate from the pistol grip, so that's not it. The picture's kinda blurry, so I really can't tell if that barrel is threaded or not. But if we give VPC the benefit of the doubt (Right, like giving a clown the benefit of the pie) IF the barrel is threaded, it IS an "assault weapon". If the barrel IS NOT threaded, it IS NOT an "assault weapon."

Yes, folks, they REALLY DID MAKE THIS A LAW. And The VPC helped them write it. I am NOT making this up.

The only other criteria I think applies is the weight. If the pistol is over 50 ounces...it's an "assault weapon". If it is not over 50 ounces, then it is NOT an "assault weapon." Or some such. The law is strangely worded and technically open to interpretation...or misinterpretation, as the case may be.

Now, please note that the M11 in its "military" or "DEA" configuration is a MACHINE GUN. Developed around the time of Vietnam, Gordon Ingram designed a barebones submachine gun that could be easily and cheaply manufactured for issue to special operations forces and indigenous populations for counterinsurgency missions. The CIA bought a lot of them and distributed them freely in places we don't like to talk about to people we don't know.

Back then, it was the M-10 in 9mm, then someone optimized the design and made it smaller and thinner, and called it the M-11. Then Military Armament Corporation started making them, and so they were called MAC-10's and MAC-11's...

In the machine gun configuration, these firearms are regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1934, 1968, and 1986. These machine guns are only available as transferable, federally registered specimens or to law enforcement, the military, or any other government agency that wants to have cheap, disposable firepower.

In the pistol configuration, people can buy 'em and play "miami vice" at the range and look cool shooting something that LOOKS like a machine gun, but isn't. Sort of like, to use the same Volkswagen/Porsche analogy (because it fits), "Yeah, it's got a Porsche body, Porsche suspension, but a Volkswagen engine so I can drive it legally on the highway." Makes the same kind of sense to me. How about you?

But see, those folks at the VPC don't make these distinctions. They want you to BAN this gun, based upon what kind of people are sometimes killed with it. In this case, police officers specifically.

Conclusion: It's a 9mm handgun. It's a little cheap and plain looking, like a brick with a barrel and a handle, but it's still just a 9mm handgun, no more, no less. It shoots 9mm bullets, just like a police-issue 9mm handgun, or the 9mm Beretta issued to the U.S. Military. It just looks different. Big deal.

April 4, 2001, Detroit, Michigan. "Assault Weapon" in question: SKS assault rifle.

Isn't it interesting that before, when mentioned above, the SKS was just a "rifle" but NOW it's an "SKS assault rifle?" What's the difference?

According to those VPC folks (and the 1994 law, coincidentally), THIS PICTURED SKS (Which, as they carefully state below, is not a picture of the specific weapon used in the shooting described in the narrative) has an EVIL FOLDING STOCK, a PROTRUDING PISTOL GRIP, and a DETACHABLE MAGAZINE!

Yep, that's an "assault weapon" all right. That's SO much different than the SKS's we've already seen. Well okay, the banana mag looks familiar, but what's UP with this flimsy folding stock? I mean, great, it's a rifle, now your 6'4" buddy can conceal it under his trenchcoat again as long as nobody notices the barrel peeking out the bottom.

Since it has to be said, the SKS is not, never was designed to be, nor ever was in any configuration, a machine gun. Ever. So even the "Well, it LOOKS like a machine gun!" Doesn't even hold water, because the SKS was designed to be just a rifle. Not an "assault weapon."

But THIS pictured one is an "assault weapon" by 1994 legal definition. Look closely, kiddies. Now look at the other 2 sks's...see that Evil Pistol Grip? Yep...

I might just register my pistol-gripped Black & Decker, you know, just to be on the safe side. Though I AM a bit confused: Do I need to register it every time I use it for screws, or just when I drill holes?

Conclusion: Just because the VPC suddenly starts calling something an "assault rifle" and they happen to be correct that in the configuration they've stumbled across (or generously called "research" by their standards), it is technically an "assault weapon" doesn't make the VPC folks any less ignorant. Instead, it demonstrates that even an idiot can be right occasionally.

September 6, 2001, Hamilton County, Tennessee. "Assault Weapon" in question: MAK-90 assault rifle

Wait a second. Isn't this the same MAK-90 from above? Suddenly, now, down HERE, it's an "assault rifle" even though several times up there, it isn't? Love that VPC consistency and accuracy.

Notice, also how evil-looking this rifle is with its black stock and long, banana magazine?

Reasons Why It Isn't An Assault Weapon: 1) No Protruding Pistol Grip. Yes, that is correct. Because the pistol grip is attached to the stock, it doesn't technically protrude. Just like the other MAK-90's previously noted. 2) No Flash Suppressor. Yes, that's correct. Those of you astute enough to pick up on this muzzle device should also correctly identify it as a muzzle brake. Those big holes are where the flames and noise come out every time it's fired. Not very flash-suppresive. 3) NO BAYONET LUG! In order for this particular rifle to be used in a drive-by bayonetting, more high-tech affixative apparatus, such as duct tape, JB Weld, bungee cord, rubber band, or a hose clamp, must be used in conjunction with the bayonet.

Conclusion: Calling it an "assault rifle" when it is NOT, doesn't change the FACT that is IS NOT, and this label certainly does not have the power of law. Only ignorant people would be fooled by this blatant attempt at misrepresentation. That's a big word; Let's just call it LYING and leave it at that, shall we?

I laughed out loud when I saw this picture. What is so funny, you may ask? You see, the VPC people were SO desperate to picture an "AK-47" in its "Original Pre-Ban State" so they could call it an "assault rifle", they mistakenly pictured a cheap copy in .22! That magazine is partially fake. Notice the little ejection port. That's a TOY! It's not even a centerfire rifle! That's a kid's .22 dressed up to LOOK like an AK!

Reason Why It Isn't An Assault Weapon: Nevermind the fact that it's got a pistol grip and the protruding magazine. This thing could have a flash suppressor, a bayonet lug, etc. etc...IT's A RIMFIRE.

What that means to you non-firearms folks is that the .22 caliber long rifle cartridge, an itty-bitty cartridge with an itty-bitty bullet, doesn't even use a traditional primer as its ignition. Instead, it uses a hollow rim, filled with primer material that is crushed when the firing pin hits it, squeezing it between the firing pin and the firing chamber.

This is a TOY. It's NOT A REAL AK. It's not EVEN THE SAME CALIBER. This is a .22 rifle like you find in Wal-Mart or sporting goods stores, or wherever. It's just got furniture (that's what the stock, and pistol grip, and foregrip are called) that have been attached to it to make it LOOK like an "assault weapon."

But remember, "each weapon shown is a representative of the brand or model of assault weapon and is not a picture of the specific weapon used in the shooting described in the narrative."

Conclusion: The VPC can't tell the difference between a .22 child's toy and a real centerfire rifle. They want to try to convince you that you can't either.

November 13, 2001, Nicholasville, Kentucky. "Assault Weapon" in question: M1 Carbine.

The SAME M1 Carbine that served REMF's in WWII and Korea? THAT Carbine? The same gun more folks have as plinkers than pretty much any other centerfire rifle? THAT M1 Carbine? The carbine that the Ruger 10-22 was modeled after? THAT M1 Carbine?

Ok, let's look at this, because technically there are TWO pictures here. The above picture, which is by far the MOST common configuration for the M1 Carbine: Standard stock, set up in 3rd generation format.

Now, the bottom picture is of the much-rarer paratrooper version of the M1 Carbine, the M1A1. Finding one with an original paratrooper stock means you have just stumbled across a collector's piece of some value if it's in good condition.

So, you have to ask yourself...since that foldable, wire stock is attached to the bottom of the pistol grip, does it protrude? The whole "assault weapon" definition revolves around THAT interpretation, and THAT INTERPRETATION ALONE.

So, wait...if I put a folding, wire stock on my Black & Decker, I WON'T have to register it as an assault weapon? Or will I?

Conclusion: When faced with a shortage of things to ban, make some more up by mislabeling old things and calling them something else.

And in this case, it's a REALLY old thing that's been around with us, available to the general public, since the 1940's...

There must be a LOT of Colt's AR-15's at the VPC. I don't think they're just SNORTING cocaine...

It should be noted that when the VPC states that something is an "assault rifle" they appear to have gone to great lengths to portray the SAME rifle they DIDN'T call an "assault rifle" several cases prior, with a nice, benign picture next to it, DIFFERENTLY than the picture of the same rifle with different furniture slapped with the label of "assault rifle".

I'd also like to mention just how dispicable it is to use the deaths of police officers to further a political agenda so absurd that they must LIE in order to prove their nonsensical point. It trivializes the deaths of the folks who protect us day in and day out to USE THEIR DEATHS to villainize the EQUIPMENT with which they were killed.

I'm fairly certain that the officers in question do not care what they were killed with. I know I wouldn't be. I'd be kinda upset to be dead, though.

So the Violence Policy Center uses emotional, tear-jerker, how-can-you-dare-not-be-horrified material like police officer slayings, then do their ridiculous little dance about "assault weapons".

As one who once carried a gun and protected people and property for a living, I am insulted.

If I were the families of any of those slain officers, I would be absolutely enraged. To attach a cheap political agenda to something like that is reprehensible.

Especially considering that fifteen incidents is all they can come up with to base their platform upon in FOUR YEARS. I wonder if they DARE post how many other ways police officers, or people in general for that matter, have died in comparison?

It's not in their best interest to point out how statisticall insignificant fifteen incidents in four years actually is. Instead, they "give each case its emotional due" and then post big pictures of evil weapons along with them.

Reprehensible and yet, at the same time it would be almost comical if it weren't so damn sad.

Hmmm...seems to me like the Violence Policy Center's main goal is to promote Policy that allows for greater Violence.

They started by murdering the english language and now they're working on your rights.

Good job. The law (the ugly weapon ban) sunsets on September 13. Let's make sure it happens.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.