Another day, another idiot who knows nothing of guns spouting off about guns. In this case, a couple of idiots, elected officials sitting in the US House of Representatives, who have introduced a bill to renew the "Assault Weapons Ban". The number of misconceptions and inaccuracies in what these Congressmen are saying beggars the imagination.
Let's look at what Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) has to say about the bill.
This is completely incorrect. The iconic "assault weapon" is the AR-15, correct? That weapon didn't start civilian sales until the early 1960's... and unless I'm very much mistaken, that is a year or two past the end of WWII.
No, what Cicilline is thinking of is an assault RIFLE. In that case, yes, the Germans did design and use the first assault rifle during WWII, the StG44 and its variants, MP43 and MP44. But see, there's a world of difference between an assault RIFLE and an assault WEAPON. An assault RIFLE is a fully automatic weapon, often with a "select fire" switch, which means the soldier can choose between single-fire (one-trigger-pull=one-bullet, i.e. semi-automatic), full-auto (keeps firing as long as the trigger is held down and it has ammunition to fire), and sometimes burst mode (one trigger pull fires three rounds).
An assault WEAPON, on the other hand, is a purely political phrase, as the only definitions can be found in the laws that spawned the term. However, they all seem to agree on two points. First, that assault weapons are semi-automatic rifles. Second, that they look "military-like" or scary, through the addition of cosmetic features like a pistol grip or a folding stock.
Federal law already strictly regulates the possession of fully automatic weapons, to the point that private ownership is rare and expensive, so any "assault weapon ban" isn't aimed at automatic weapons, they're aimed at SEMI-automatic weapons. And that alone brings the next quote into ridicule.
So... no. Then Rep. Janice Hahn (D-Calif.) joined into this parade of uninformed commentary, with the following (emphasis mine):
Let me just say this. Any soldier who walked out onto a battlefield today with a SEMI-automatic, scary-looking assault WEAPON, would find himself seriously outgunned in no time at all. And if they wanted to "inflict the maximum amount of death and injury", they'd want to ditch the semi-automatic assault weapon and pick up a fully automatic assault rifle. Or maybe a bazooka... after all, she DID say "maximum amount of damage." Heck, how about a tank, or a nuke? But whichever of those the soldier selects, a civilian marketed semi-automatic weapon would likely be far down the list of weapons he'd find acceptable.
As for them not being for hunting or target practice, many people use an AR-15 for exactly those activities. As a matter of fact, an AR-15 is, in fact, one of the weapons used for shooting competitions.
So, to all of you gun-control nuts out there, please learn a little about the subject so that you at least SOUND like you know what you're talking about, because right now you sound like blithering idiots to the rest of us.
No, "assault weapons" weren't designed during WWII for the battlefield. No, "assault weapons" aren't weapons of war. Yes, people who make such fundamental mistakes make fools of themselves by showcasing their ignorance.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Let's look at what Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) has to say about the bill.
“Now, let’s remember that assault weapons were first designed for the battlefield by Germans during the Second World War.”
This is completely incorrect. The iconic "assault weapon" is the AR-15, correct? That weapon didn't start civilian sales until the early 1960's... and unless I'm very much mistaken, that is a year or two past the end of WWII.
No, what Cicilline is thinking of is an assault RIFLE. In that case, yes, the Germans did design and use the first assault rifle during WWII, the StG44 and its variants, MP43 and MP44. But see, there's a world of difference between an assault RIFLE and an assault WEAPON. An assault RIFLE is a fully automatic weapon, often with a "select fire" switch, which means the soldier can choose between single-fire (one-trigger-pull=one-bullet, i.e. semi-automatic), full-auto (keeps firing as long as the trigger is held down and it has ammunition to fire), and sometimes burst mode (one trigger pull fires three rounds).
An assault WEAPON, on the other hand, is a purely political phrase, as the only definitions can be found in the laws that spawned the term. However, they all seem to agree on two points. First, that assault weapons are semi-automatic rifles. Second, that they look "military-like" or scary, through the addition of cosmetic features like a pistol grip or a folding stock.
Federal law already strictly regulates the possession of fully automatic weapons, to the point that private ownership is rare and expensive, so any "assault weapon ban" isn't aimed at automatic weapons, they're aimed at SEMI-automatic weapons. And that alone brings the next quote into ridicule.
"The sole purpose of their existence was to kill as many people as quickly as possible during military combat."
So... no. Then Rep. Janice Hahn (D-Calif.) joined into this parade of uninformed commentary, with the following (emphasis mine):
"The assault weapons we’re talking about today are not just any guns. 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.”
Let me just say this. Any soldier who walked out onto a battlefield today with a SEMI-automatic, scary-looking assault WEAPON, would find himself seriously outgunned in no time at all. And if they wanted to "inflict the maximum amount of death and injury", they'd want to ditch the semi-automatic assault weapon and pick up a fully automatic assault rifle. Or maybe a bazooka... after all, she DID say "maximum amount of damage." Heck, how about a tank, or a nuke? But whichever of those the soldier selects, a civilian marketed semi-automatic weapon would likely be far down the list of weapons he'd find acceptable.
As for them not being for hunting or target practice, many people use an AR-15 for exactly those activities. As a matter of fact, an AR-15 is, in fact, one of the weapons used for shooting competitions.
So, to all of you gun-control nuts out there, please learn a little about the subject so that you at least SOUND like you know what you're talking about, because right now you sound like blithering idiots to the rest of us.
No, "assault weapons" weren't designed during WWII for the battlefield. No, "assault weapons" aren't weapons of war. Yes, people who make such fundamental mistakes make fools of themselves by showcasing their ignorance.