Gun Control

Democrats Say Guns Owned by Millions of Americans Are Good Only for Mass Murder

The Assault Weapons Ban of 2015 covers guns with lethal features like threaded barrels and folding stocks.


Office of David Cicilline

This week, in an editorial titled "Don't Blame Mental Illness for Gun Violence," The New York Times noted that "less than 5 percent of gun homicides between 2001 and 2010 were committed by people with diagnoses of mental illness." The week before last, in a front-page editorial titled "End the Gun Epidemic in America," the Times urged Congress to ban "the slightly modified combat rifles used in California," a.k.a. "assault weapons" (although the rifles used in the San Bernardino massacre did not qualify for that label under California law). FBI data indicate that rifles in general, which include many guns that are not considered "assault weapons," were used in about 2 percent of homicides (and 3 percent of gun homicides) last year.

Why does the Times understand percentages when it comes to people with psychiatric diagnoses but not when it comes to people with guns? Probably because fear and loathing of firearms prevent its editorialists from thinking straight. But in light of these numbers, it seems quite unlikely that a ban on so-called assault weapons—even if it somehow eliminated the millions of "assault weapons" already in circulation, and even if murderers did not simply switch to other, equally lethal guns—would have a noticeable impact on gun violence, let alone that it would "end the gun epidemic in America."

Undaunted by that reality, Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), joined by 123 cosponsors, this week announced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015, which would "prohibit the sale, transfer, production, and importation of…semi-automatic rifles and handguns with a military-style feature that can accept a detachable magazine." Cicilline did not explain what he means by "a military-style feature," and so far I have had no luck locating the actual text of his bill. But assuming it resembles the "assault weapon" ban that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) proposed in 2013, the prohibited features are things like pistol grips, barrel shrouds, threaded barrels, and folding stocks.

It's a mystery why Cicilline thinks such features make firearms especially lethal, let alone uniquely suited to mass murder. But that is what he claims to think. "The sole purpose of their existence," he told reporters on Wednesday, is "to kill as many people as quickly as possible." Rep. Janice Hahn (D-Calif.) agreed. "The assault weapons we're talking about today are not just any guns," she said. "They're not for hunting. They're not for target practice. These are weapons of war, designed to inflict the maximum amount of death and injury." Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the Democratic whip, chimed in, averring that "assault weapons" are not appropriate for people who "want to protect themselves in their homes" either.

If the guns that Cicilline, Hahn, and Stoyer want to ban have no legitimate uses, how do they account for their popularity with law-abiding Americans? The Hill  notes that "8 million to 9 million assault weapons…are already in circulation." The percentage of those guns used to kill people is minuscule. Evidently the rest are used for things like hunting, target practice, and self-defense—the very purposes for which Cicilline et al. deem them unsuited. Is it possible they know less about "assault weapons" than they think they do?

Bonus: Eugene Volokh lists four reasons why Second Amendment fans are as alarmed by "assault weapon" bans as Cicilline is by folding stocks.

NEXT: Solicitor General Says SCOTUS Shouldn't Hear Challenge to Marijuana Legalization

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The gun manufacturers and republicans would like to thank you for that.

    1. And freedom loving Americans who revere the Bill of Rights as well. Sound good to you snowflake?

    2. Hmmm, it appears my sarcasm meter may need calibration…no offense. 🙂

      1. None taken:) the fact is that this idiotic proposal will go nowhere but will result in a spike in gun sales and will hurt dems at the polls which was what I was getting at

        1. It’s another Christmas miracle!

          1. Or Festivus if you are so inclined!

            1. I prefer the Festival of Natalis Invicti

              1. As long as it involves lots of good food, alcohol, and screwing I don’t care what y’all call it.

            2. so who is this Festus of whom you speak?

              1. so who is this Festus of whom you speak?

                Now, doggone it Matthew!!

  2. There is no and never has been any such thing as an “assault weapon”. It is a made up term to scare low information voters. There are semi automatic weapons, automatic weapons and within those two varieties pistols, shotguns, carbines and rifles. That is it. Each of those 8 possible categories of weapons can be deadly and even the most deadly of all of them depending on the circumstances. An automatic shotgun is going to be a lot more deadly in confines spaces than a fully automatic rifle, though both are certainly deadly.

    I wish these half wits would realize or be honest enough to admit that you are just as dead whether you are stabbed, shot, blown up or pushed out of a window.

    1. +12 Saiga

      1. Or hell even grandpa’s old duck gun. I’d rather get hit with a 223 than a 12 gauge any day. Worse yet would be getting purposely rammed by a car which has happened in France. Actually happened here as well.

        1. I love how they always say “you can keep your hunting weapons just not these evil assault weapons” like a .270 deer rifle or 12 gauge shotgun won’t cut someone in half. They are just morons.

          1. idiot numbskulls kinda forget that most states will not allow the use of these for hunting deer or larger game… too underpowered, The risk of a hit that is not immediately lethal is too high… which shots end up wasting the animal instead of a harvest, as it will wander off, and most often seek shelter and slowly, miserablyh die over the next few days from the less than lethal wound. In such states, the far more lethal .243 round is the minimum, or perhaps the 6.5 x 55 Swede. (a very capable military round been with us since the 1920’s at least, in wide use for hunting. VERY flat shooting, and lethal at far longer range than the .223/5.56 the “black and ugly” rifles use.

        2. If you have seen the ABSOLUTELY BRUTAL car attack by the palistinian nutcase on a fucking RABBI, you can see just how bad that would be. OF course, he then gets out of the car and hacks a man to death with a meat cleaver before being shot by a passerby who was armed with an evil gun.


          Media would hate for you to see this which is why it got so little traction in America…

    2. Obviously the 223s did some damage in San Bernardino. Given the scenerio a couple of Glock 21 or 22 handguns would have been just as effective and perhaps even more lethel. Public has been convinced that these are full auto guns by the media and pop culture who have misrepresented the facts out of ignorance or willful dishonesty.

    3. Re: John,

      There is no and never has been any such thing as an “assault weapon”.

      Well, a club can be turned into an assault weapon if I use it to assault you.

      Of course the concept is silly. It came about because Hitler, once he was shown the effectiveness of the MP43, decided to call it Sturmgewehr and all of a sudden the word fills the mouths of ignorant buttholes like the Demo-rats and their Marxian enablers.

  3. I still remember Feinstein standing in front of the press explaining how pistol grips were bad because you could shoot from the hip. Facepalm. As opposed to using the goddamn sights? Idiots, one and all.

    1. It is as if these people wallow in their invincible ignorance.

      1. No “as if” about it.

    2. you mean the “shouldr thing that goes up”? Yeah, a few watts short of a lightbulb, alfight.

  4. Why do all of you gun nuts want to murder me?

    1. It’s not just the gun nuts.

    2. The guns made us.

    3. There’s only a few things that keeps me from murdering most of the people I meet, and none of them involves the type of gun I can legally purchase.

    4. only one does… but YOUR problem is this: WHICH ONE? Good luck with that one.

  5. I find it intriguing that this post coincided with the Mourning Lynx? Is it going to be a busy news day? Or just trying to meet quota before the afternoon Xmas cocktail parties?

    1. It’s always seemed to me that they could get more bang for their buck if they scheduled their articles to post a little more spread out. I guess for some things you want to get to market as quickly as possible bu there are plenty of stories that could wait until evening or weekend to be post.

  6. You’re more likely to be killed by an illegal immigrant than by an “assault rifle”, and getting rid of either is impossible. That’s a fun statistic to tell Democrats.

    1. Nice. Citation?

      1. Per article “assault” weapons account for 2% of homicides. Below is your stats for illegals. Raw data is included so you can make your own conclusions. Summary: a hell of a lot more than 2%. Not that any if that matters but you wanted stats so….…..ns_do.html

  7. Is it possible they know less about “assault weapons” than they think they do?

    “I think I know *quite enough*, thank you very much!”

  8. The legislation proposed after all these tragedies always seem to share two traits. First, they would not have stopped the slaughter from happening because they are not applicable to the situation even though the crime is being held up as why they are needed which is illogical at best. Second, they have been on the gun banners wish list long befire the tragedy ever happened which is dishonest and slimy at best.

    1. At this point I’m convinced that somewhere there exist stacks and stacks of liberty-destroying legislation that is sitting there waiting for the right excuse to try to pass. Remember that after one of these events, it takes mere hours before some huge bill is proposed in response. They can’t write the shit that fast. It’s already written, and sitting around waiting for some tragedy to be used as an excuse to kill more liberty.

      1. How do you think the Patriot Act was put together so quickly? It was everything on the on the Christmas list submitted at one time.

        1. It was a bunch of law enforcement tools that were already in use against “drug kingpins,” and that act merely extended the use of those tools against everyone who hasn’t yet proven that they’re not a terrorist (everyone).

        2. My thought exactly.

      2. That’s true not only of liberty-destroying but also liberty-enhancing & liberty-neutral legisl’n.

      3. SO true. Remember the “incident” in Washington State about, oh, five years back, where a convicted felon in violation of his parole and under indictment for more felony charges walked into a coffee shop near Tacoma, Washington, with a handgun in his jacket pocket… drew it.. and shot four police officers meeting up before they went on shift? Three died instantly, the fourth was able to crawl out the door after the perp, got off one round, wounding him, the perp turned back around and executed the poor guy lying there, then stole HIS duty weapon out of his dead hands.. got into his “friends” El CAmino and disappeared. (he was “contacted” two days leter by LE in another city, having no cllue who he was, the perp pulled a handgun and fired on the officer, who was not hit, returned fire, two rounds, perp dropped dead. It was only after that shooting (totally justified, as he was under fire) it was discovered the dead perp was the cop killer.. and the handgun he had the one stolen from the murdered cop.

        An ?ber liberal left wing gun grabbing Senator from Seattl filed an “assault weapons ban” as a new bill in the Senate. Might as well have filed a bill to require a minimum number of square feet for each laying hen in egg producing establishments… would have done as much to deal with the root problem here…. which was a felon out on parole who should have been locked up, especiall since he was not only in violation of that parol, but under indictment for new felony crimes.

  9. You are more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by an “assault weapon”. Clearly this is in the top 1,630,304 issues facing the US.

  10. *Sighhhhhhh….*

    How many AR’s are these fucking idiots going to provoke me into building?!?!?

  11. Two questions: do the Dems include the “justified” homicides of Tamir Rice, or police killings whitewashed by Solicitor Chrissy Adams?
    Has anyone ever resisted IRS efforts to seize homes and property with the kinds of weapons the Dems insist shall remain in the hands of the DEA, IRS, FBI, BATF, ICE, CBP, Federal Marshals and U.S. Treasury?

  12. If these people ever saw the havoc I can cause on ducks and geese with my Churchill o\u 12 gauge they’d want to ban it too.. I really believe they want to try to ban all semi autos right now and more gun grabbers will be calling for that.Well except for agents of the state.

    1. nobody needs more than a modified choke.

      1. My top barrel is modified,bottom improved cylinder.Three inch chambers.I only use three inch on geese,T shot .Didn’t need three inch before the ban on lead for geese,l.number 2 copper buffered did the job. BTw,my gun is choked true,not just at the end. All around bird and water fowl gun it is.

        1. you’re the first to say you’re not modified and full on your O/U. for a while i thought those were the only chokes i’d heard it so often.

          1. I have no use for a full choke. My first shot is always close on decoys and on grouse and other upland birds.The second can reach out more.I use a number of loads for ranges and bird sizes.7 and a half for dove and grouse,6 for pheasants, number 4 steel for wood ducks,number 2 steel for large puddle ducks like mallards and 3 inch steel t shot for geese.

            1. Nice. What kind of gun do you have?

              1. Churchill O\U,high vent rib,chrome bores,European hard wood style stock. 26 inch barrels.I’m half man,half gun,lol. Oh and a Marlin .22 semi carbine,10 shot, with 4 power wide view scope for tree rats.A Winchester 3 shot auto 20 gauge deer gun.

                1. Wow, that’s pretty sweet. That is one hell of a barrel:)

                  1. ^#barrelenvy

    2. You’re correct. This legislation would serve as a simple foot in the door for a wider gun ban. They know if they can enforce legislation that bans meaningless cosmetic features, they can ban more meaningful features when more shootings aren’t prevented. Goodbye semi-autos, pump shotguns, detachable magazines, and concealable handguns.

      1. so they would like to think…. and for us to agree with them

        If they, for one nanosecond, even suspect we will comply, all of us, fully, well I’ve got a chickeh can fly to the moon and back in two weeks.

    3. My Stoeger M3000 with the 8+1 mag tube would do some serious harm. Some 3 gunners can reload in two seconds (quads-4 shells at a time)

    4. If you would just wait your turn they will get around to you. I can see it now – “any firearm which can made to fire more than one shot in less than one second”…

  13. Question for people more informed than I am…

    My understanding is that shotgun barrels aren’t supposed to be less than 18″ long by law and rifle barrels aren’t supposed to be less than 16″ long.

    Why is this rifle with an 11″ barrel legal–especially considering that the stock has been shaved off?

    It only has a five round capacity. Are they qualifying it as a pistol?

    If it qualifies as a pistol, then why don’t sawed off shotguns qualify as pistols? Is it because the barrel isn’t rifled on a shotgun?

    1. Correction: the barrel length on that factory mare leg is 13″, but that’s still. below the 16″ legal limit.

      Why is that legal?

      1. You can actually legally purchase short barreled rifles and shotguns as class III weapons under tge same process used to buy full auto and silencers.

        1. You mean at a gun show?

          1. No, through a dealer licensed to sell Class III weapons. Tax stamp, longer waiting period, fingerprints and fbi background check. Be prepared to hire a lawyer to force the local sheriff to sign off if he refuses as as often sop. Also, be prepared to be checked on after the purchase as can happen.

        2. I don’t have any use for one, I just saw those on their website and was wondering how the heck that can be legal.

          Might be useful for backpacking through bear country, I guess.

          1. You just have to backback with someone slower than you:)

            1. …or shoot him/her in the foot…

              1. Yeah, a .22 would do the job:)

    2. Yeah, once you get rid of the stock it’s a pistol. They have these sort of partial stocks with arm braces I believe now. The barrel length laws are bullshit to start with

      1. ^^^^ This X 10000.

      2. the barrel length laws came in during prohibition, when the bootleggers and runners wanted long range weapons “all the better to shoot you with, my dear revenooer”. That’s why the illegal even then BATF put the short barreled full stocked guns into the same category as the “tommy guns” and such…. full auto long guns of any calibre. “”Did this fully remove them from the hands of the runrunners? Of COURSE not. But when caught the Revenooers had extra leverage fo “ensure you cooperate, Pal”. and if they did not, longer stretches on that ol rockpile laying out twenty years. And those machine gun/short barreled” charges could keep a guy in da joint long after prohibition was ended, unlike the smuggling charges.

    3. Mare’s Leg
      Lever Action Pistol

      1. It does say pistol. I didn’t see that before.

        ’cause it’s a classic Winchester style Henry Rifle with the barrel and stock shortened.

        1. Also, look at the calibers that it is available in. They’re all handgun rounds or .22.

          1. Yeah, but that’s the way a lot the Henry Rifles are.

            These are sweet.


            Comes in .44 mag/.44 special, .357 mag/.38 special, and .45 Colt.

            Those are the carbines, but the 20″ barrels are the same way.

            It’s a cowboy thing, to be able to shoot the same ammo in both your pistol and your rifle.

            1. It’s a cowboy thang. Ya’ll wouldn’t understand.

            2. I want an old Marlin or Winchester or Remington in .45/70 Government… shortened both ends to look/qualify as a”handgun”, though I think it would be more accuratel a “handsgun”. Some of the early Winchesters, Marlins, Remington lever action rifles were chambered in some pretty hefty cartridges…. and Browning not long after. Many were designed to be short and handy for stagecoach defense. Handy, quick acting, accurate at medium range, and with enough authority to be effective against coach robbers, Indians, etc.

    4. Because shotguns are just that, guns that shoot shot. A shotgun round is a bunch of small round pellets that upon leaving the end of the barrel spread out into a pattern. The shorter the barrel the wider the pattern. A sawed off shotgun is a shotgun with a very short barrel made so to create a huge pattern of shot at close range and make the weapon more deadly. They are illegal because such a weapon is worthless for hunting and is considered to only have been made to do mischief to other people.

      A rifle round is in contrast a single slug that spins down the rifling of the barrel towards its target. A rifle with an artificially short barrel just makes the weapon less accurate and generally more useless. Short rifle barrels are not illegal because no one would want such a thing.

      1. Well, that’s the other end of the equation.

        I understand this isn’t a shotgun because the 2.5″ barrel is rifled and it can shoot .45 colt ammo.…..bseries=41

        But you can’t buy either The Judge or the Mare’s Leg in California.

        I’m guess it’s because they don’t recognize the distinction between rifled barrels and shotgun barrels as it pertains to barrel length. I’d want to check that’s it’s okay to buy a carbine with a 16″ barrel in California. The 18″ shotgun length might be the minimum for rifles, too.

        1. The only reason I can imagine is that they think the short barreled .45 is too easy to conceal. It is all bullshit of course but that is the reason I bet.

          1. Because it fires .410 shotgun shells, they’re saying it’s a shotgun with a 2.5″ barrel.

            Other states say that if the barrel is rifled for bullets, then it isn’t a shotgun.

            1. The Judge is a handgun.

              Its legal because it has a rifled barrel.
              So even though it can shoot .410, the ATF still considers it a pistol.

              Without the rifling in the barrel it would be a short barrel shotgun and you’d need the tax stamp.

              1. Or it could be an AOW. Not really certain other than “don’t make one yourself”

              2. The reason you can’t buy it in California is because California doesn’t recognize the distinction between rifled barrels and shotgun barrels–so they consider The Judge an illegal shotgun with an illegally short barrel.

                1. Ya I didn’t see the word California in what you wrote. Was thinking more broadly.

      2. Any AR below 16″ is military or lea only except for class III of course.

        1. And that is absurd. Like I say above, it must be out of concerns that it can be more easily concealed.

          1. That is all it is

        2. Unless it’s a handgun.

          I have a sweet AR in 6.8X43mm with an 11.5 inch barrel. I can’t put a buttstock on it since it’s a handgun by federal law but the recoil tube gives me a really nice cheek weld so it performs about as good as a short carbine. Nice that the caliber was designed to work well in short barrels too.

          1. Optimal barrel length for a 5.56 is 16 inches so I made (yes, milled it the fuck out) AR pistol in 300 BLK with a 10.5 inch barrel. Sweet/

      3. I want a short barreled rifle.

        An 11″ AR seems to me to be the perfect home defense weapon.

        1. 12 gauge pump will do the job.

          1. You can have your pump with it’s 7 or 8 round tube. I’ll keep my Saiga-12 with a 20 round drum.

            1. You expecting the cartel?

              1. I just don’t want whoever it is to think he might have a chance by testing me. I want him/them to know instictually that death has them by the short hairs and every word I utter will have the weight of life and death in the immediate future.

                1. The 12 rounder is MORE than sufficient. I have that god-awful expensive 20 rounder and it is just too big and awkward to be maneuverable in a smaller space. Of course, I put a folding stock on my Saiga….

            2. So you’re good at drywall is what you’re telling us.

              1. You don’t fix the drywall. You put a frame around it.

      4. whicih features make them both very useful for close range home defense, a fact they conveineintly forget about. Main reason they were outlawed originally is because of the gangs and prohitibition times. NO handgun could pack the sort of wallop a 12 bore with number four pouring out the end of a twelve inch barrel. They were also far more easilhy concealed under a “gangster coat” , overcoat, trench coat, etc, than a goose gun with full stock and a 32 inch barrel.

    5. Why is this rifle with an 11″ barrel legal–especially considering that the stock has been shaved off?

      “Mare’s Leg — Lever Action Pistol”

      If it qualifies as a pistol, then why don’t sawed off shotguns qualify as pistols? Is it because the barrel isn’t rifled on a shotgun?

      The answer is: Because the ATF has stupid bullshit rules. The justification is, if the receiver of a firearm has never been built into a rifle, then it can be built, the first time, as a pistol.

      If you do that with a rifle receiver, you just have a pistol.

      If you do that with a shotgun receiver, you have what’s called an “AOW” — “Any Other Weapon”, which is restricted under the National Firearms Act of 1933, just like short barrelled shotguns and short barrelled rifles and full auto weapons, but which only has a $5 transfer tax, instead of a $200 transfer tax.

      It’s how people get away with building AR pistols, and AK pistols, and any number of other rifle caliber pistols built on rifle receivers.

      1. so, buy the bare receiver for, say, a BLR, even a BAR, have a custom short barrel made, and carve up your own stock. Its all brand new never been built into a rifle.

        What a stupid distinguishing factor. Even start mass producing them….. all brand new. WHo cares if the inmantes running The Assylum Commonly Known As California (TACKAC) won’t let their betters buy them in that state.

    6. Its classified as a pistol.

  14. During a particularly fevered dream, I envisioned a shotgun with rectangular shells and a rectangular barrel (tall, narrow). The theory is to maximize hits to the neck of a turkey. With round barrels and shells, half your shot misses the neck. I suppose the shot themselves will still be round.


    1. I don’t think you gain anything by adding corners. If you want more shot on target use a tighter choke.

      1. Oh, rectangular, not square, sorry.

    2. There used to be such a thing as a duck-bill shotgun, designed to spread the pattern horizontally. I don’t think it worked particularly well, or it would probably still be around.

    3. Well,the barrel may explode due to the design and the shot would tumble and spread wild due to air pressure on the edges.and angles.Best to use buffered shot for a turkey to keep the pattern compact BTW,The problem with steel shot is its so light and loses speed so fast you need to use two sizes lager and shorten you shot.I do this bi putting my last decoy out at maximum kill range for a good clean kill.

  15. My biggest concern is that one of these nimrods will study the issue and figure out its weak points. I think the $200 tax stamp is vulnerable. It’s been $200 since the ’30s. That’s something like $2500 today.

    1. That’s for Class III weapons only, which are never used in a crime. The only time a full auto has been used was with an illegally converted gun, ie no tax stamp.

      1. That is for all NFA weapons except for AOW’s. Short barrel Rifles or Shotguns, Suppressors (silencers for the un-initiated), Destructive Devices (non-shotgun with bore over 50 caliber), and full auto – all transfer with a $200 tax stamp.

      2. “never used in crime”

        That does not seem to matter to the prohibitionists.

        My point being that they could fuck around with something actually useful. Increase the tax stamp to 2500 and put suppressors out of reach commercially.

        I have a threaded Walther PPQ. Been looking at going the 199 trust route. Definitely want to get it done before some nimrod decides to inflation-adjust the stamp.

        1. They could also add “magazine fed, semi-auto” to the NFA list. The average, dipshit wouldn’t know what happened.

        2. Anyone make a 3D printer design for a suppressor yet?

          1. Yes.


            Of course that’s a new $200 stamp after every melting unless you’re permitted to melt it down and recycle the same plastic which I imagine would be fouled with particulates.

      3. Not true. A legally registered NFA full auto was once used to commit murder. By a cop. Of his wife.

        1. Do cops have to pay the tax stamp?

        2. I thought it was to murder an informant.

          Was back in the 70s IIRC.

  16. Rep. Janice Hahn (D-Calif.) agreed. “The assault weapons we’re talking about today are not just any guns,” she said. “They’re not for hunting. They’re not for target practice. These are weapons of war, designed to inflict the maximum amount of death and injury.”

    Said the politician who knows fuck-all about hunting and target practice. I used to have an AR-15; I bought it for high power rifle competitions. I discovered that the hobby was even more expensive than the handgun competitions I’d been doing so that came to naught, and I sold the rifle.

    I think this is a big part of why we were intended to have limited government: to spare us from having to have nonsense laws imposed upon us by people who don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.

    1. And apparently they’ve never been coyote hunting where ARs are the gun of choice.

      1. And HOGS!!!

        1. I use mine as a surrogate penis, so they aren’t completely without purpose. /sarc

  17. Media coverage and political discussion of any topic on which you are an expert is always appalling. There are no exceptions.

    1. The worst part is that people seem to forget this when they see coverage of something they’re not an expert about, and often believe what they read, instead of applying the same level of incredulity.

      *sees article written by moron about guns* “That guy knows nothing! What an idiot!”

      *sees article written by same moron about international trade* “Hunh. Well, that makes sense I guess.”

      1. See : Gell-Mann amnesia effect

  18. Seems to me like you could do more damage with a couple gallons of gas and a lighter. What will they do then? Outlaw gas cans probably.

    1. Apparently some new regulation makes gas cans require a valve. I have two, they leak gas over everything. Apparently it’s safer. I’m in the black market for the old ones that worked.

      1. EPA mandated… so they won;t leak or spill. You know, its all about the environment, because of the children. The ones THEY won’t have. Or raise.

        And you will not find the old ones anywhere except possibly at the odd yard/garage sale. I’ve been looking.

      2. Blame California. Its their fault.
        EPA adopted California’s standard.

        Here’s how you fix them

        Your spout may be different, but the venting problem can be solved pretty much the same way for any can.

  19. So Paul Ehrlich approves this message?

    1. Context, Sevo, context:
      “Democrats Say Guns Owned by Millions of Americans Are Good Only for Mass Murder”
      See, millions of guns, each causing mass murder, and uh….

  20. If these types of gun “have no legitimate uses”, why does the government issue them to police and military personnel? Are their uses illegitimate?

    1. Their only use is to kill people, and only agents of the state are allowed to do that.

      1. They have to kill you to keep you from hurting yourself. So it’s done out of love.

    2. No! The government loves us, and love is a battlefield!

      1. +1 Benatar

    3. Yup. When you and I want to buy them they are labelled “assault weapons”, But when DHS, Dept of Ed,USDA, IRS, etc, want them, they are conveniently relabelled “defensive weapons” Same exact item. Its all on your point of view…… and theirs is twisted.

  21. One of the many reasons why my go-to firearms are semi-auto, magazine fed, “military style” long guns is because should I have to face some armed scum trying to trespass into my abode I want to make it pretty clear that he is outgunned and unlikely to survive the encounter.

    First, because that is a highly probable fact but second because I would prefer he doesn’t feel comfortable enough to test the theory as he might if I was toting a 38 SPL revolver..

  22. “Why does the Times understand percentages when it comes to people with psychiatric diagnoses but not when it comes to people with guns?”

    Probably because most of the ‘gun violence’ stats include suicides to make the number look larger. Suicides are not homicides but if you take them out of the ‘gun violence’ stats based on mental illness then a more realistic and less scary view of gun violence emerges. They don’t want that.

  23. I didn’t know you had to provide a reason for owning a gun. I thought the whole point of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the government uneasy. If my assumption is true isn’t this constitutional right doing exactly what it was intended to do?

    1. I don’t really care if I have to provide a reason why I want to purchase a gun – as long as “I want it” is an acceptible answer.

      I did have to provide a reason when I applied for a couple NFA transfers. IIRC I wrote “collecting” and “target shooting”.

  24. It’s a mystery why Cicilline thinks such features make firearms especially lethal

    Maybe he like his fellow Marxians believe those rifles shoot straighter…

    I don’t know.

    Rep. Janice Hahn (D-Calif.) agreed. “The assault weapons we’re talking about today are not just any guns,” she said. “They’re not for hunting. They’re not for target practice.[…]”

    I guess fellow Marxians do NOT believe those rifles shoot straighter if they think they’re not for hunting or shooting at targets.

    Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the Democratic whip, chimed in, averring that “assault weapons” are not appropriate for people who “want to protect themselves in their homes” either.

    Of course, but only if you use them as clubs. Otherwise they shoot intruders to Kingdom Come just as well as muskets, blunderbusses or pistols.

    1. If you have the feeling that Marxians are also incapable of making a single coherent argument, you are not dreaming or wrong. You have one stupid Marxian arguing that these weapons are too lethal while at the same time you have another arguing they’re not meant for hunting or defending one’s home. I guess they’re too lethal in some instances and useless in others?

      Incoherence is what permeates the mind of the Marxian.

      1. They don’t even pretend to be rational. That requires being consistent and adhering to principles which is what dirty ideologues do. They’re better than stupid ideologues. If they seem incoherent it’s only because their strong feelings are difficult to express. But their feelings are real, and that’s all they need to know.

        1. Somewhat obscure, but when Jim DeMint was senator from South Carolina, he was opposed to taking federal funds to dredge Charleston’s harbor. But his “less ideological” colleague Lindsey Graham wanted to take the money. Get it ? DeMint wasn’t principled, he was “ideological”

          1. Same thing. People who stand on principle are bad people. They’re ideologues. They can’t be reasoned with or bargained with. The believe in absolutes, like right and wrong. They don’t understand that each situation is different, with a different set of feelings. It’s the feelings that matter. Not right or wrong. Right and wrong are malleable, depending on how you feel. Stupid ideologues are unfeeling. They’re terrible people. Just awful. They should be rounded up and put into camps, for the good of the nation.

      2. In the same vein, it’s an assault weapon in the hands of a private citizen, but the same gun becomes a “patrol rifle” when an agent of the state has one.

        1. Well, yeah. When it’s in the hands of a government agent you’re supposed to feel safe. After all, they’re there to protect us. When it’s in the hands of anyone else you’re supposed to be terrified because, well, THEY’VE GOT A GUN! AN ASSAULT RIFLE! RUN! CALL THE POLICE! AAAUUUGGHHH!

          1. if the one in whose hands that ‘assault rifle” is resting had evil intent, “run, call the police” would be useless. Not one man alive can outrun even the slowest of rifle cartriges once fired. If the guy wants you dead, and you’re not well armed and ready, run as hard and fast as you want, or have the coppers on speed dial.. you’re still dead, and the coppers, when they finish their donuts and arrive, will take eight or so hours each to draw chalklines, find empty shell casings, measure every imaginable measurable thing, and take seven thousand photpgraphs.

  25. The unfortunate fact is that ~20 YA they sold the term “assault weapon” & so never have to argue about the individual features (because doing so would be ludicrous) any more.

  26. What is to say? Gun grabbers lie. Everything they say is calculated to deceive. Even their professed goal is a lie.

    1. taquiyya, much?

  27. “a military-style feature,”

    Like bullets, for example.

    Keep your powder dry, and your woodchippers gassed.

    1. like light tan paint, light weight plastic stocks that are adjustable so any soldier (or kid) can fire anyone else’s rifle… things like that?

  28. More “feel good” legislation advanced by the “I must be seen to be doing something” members of the No-Nothing Party, aka Progressives.

  29. I don’t know about the congressman’s guns, if he actually has any, but the only thing that mine have “killed” could be summarized as follows:

    1. A fairly large number of clay pigeons, back when I was engaged in trap shooting.
    2. Various paper targets, with both rifles and pistols, sometimes revolvers too. I suppose that some were only “wounded” to some degree.
    3. All of my pistols, so called “automatic pistols” which are actually semi-automatic, feature detachable box magazines, which by the way are a basic characteristic of the most commonly encountered pistols.

    The foregoing having been noted, who in blazes winds this guy, the congressman up, and why do they bother?

  30. Fine, then. If this passes I’ll simply go and buy a Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle. Conventional stock (I’ll just make sure the one it has fits ME, but most off the shelf rifles do anyway). standard sling, don’t need a barrel shroud, though if the barrel is not threaded I’ll likely have it done so as to mount a supressor.. save my hearing that way.

    Funny thing, this model rifle LOOKS like any standard hunting rifle, fires exactly the same underpowered smallbore cartridge the “evil nasty ugly high powered assault weapons” fire (illegal for use in hunting deer on most Western states, too underpowered), and exactly the same detachable box magazine the “black and ugly” ones use, and available in standard capacity as well… that is, 30 rounds.

    SO, it is every bit as capable, and in my opinion, a lot more comfortable and usable than the “modern sporting rifles” are. Also available in stainless…… great for the NorthWet weather……

  31. “These are weapons of war, designed to inflict the maximum amount of death and injury.”

    Wait, this is what we send our troops into battle with? No wonder we can’t win any wars! Our enemies have machine guns, and all we have are semi-automatic rifles!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.