I have two rifles. For the sake of simplicity, we will refer to them as Rifle A:
… and Rifle B:
Both rifles use “military calibers” – Rifle A eats a round adopted by the military in 1963 (the 5.56x45mm NATO) and Rifle B employs one that has been around since 1954 (the 7.62x51mm NATO).
In fact, both rifles are civilian-legal clones of still-serving military hardware – Rifle A is technically the predecessor of the omnipresent M-16, and Rifle B is a copy of the venerable (and repeatedly resurrected) M-14. The only significant differences between my rifles and those employed by the military is that mine are incapable of automatic/burst/repeat fire.
Both rifles are magazine-fed – with their capacities solely limited by your budget, and ranging from a single round to a hundred and beyond.
Both rifles’ magazines are as common as water – and found, and made, in nearly as many places.
Both rifles will shoot as quickly as their operators can pull the trigger – at least until those magazines are depleted.
Both rifles can reliably hit man-sized targets over five football fields away – assuming the user is likewise up to the task.
Both rifles are designed for ease of in-field repairs, adjustments, and modifications – and while Rifle A has far more options in the matters, both can be reduced to their component parts with the simplest of tools.
Both rifles employ nearly identical actions – semi-automatic, gas-operated, rotating bolts.
Both rifles are produced by similar manufacturers – many of which who have had or still held government contracts to manufacture the same.
However, despite all of those similarities, Rifle B shoots a larger bullet (both in terms of diameter and weight – 150 grains versus 62), farther (effective at 1000+ yards, versus 600), and with more energy (2584 ft*lbf versus 1303 ft*lbf).
All this said and done with, one of these rifles was/is banned, and one of them is not. Which is which?
While it is arguably the more dangerous and destructive of the two, if you guessed Rifle B, you would be wrong.
Rifle A was banned under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and is still banned under the California Assault Weapon Ban, and yet Rifle B was, and is, wholly permissable under both. Why? Well, Rifle A has too many “dangerous” features: detachable magazines in addition to a telescoping stock, a pistol grip, and a threaded barrel (with a flash suppressor attached) – four strikes against it, when only two are needed. Rifle B has none of those features, and is thus allowable under law.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why the “Assault Weapon Bans”, in both of their incarnations, were absolutely and completely idiotic. We all know that the cosmetic features banned in the AWB, including the 10-round magazine limit, had no bearing on those firearms’ efficacy or deadliness. We all know that the Assault Weapon Ban had absolutely no discernable impact on crime. We all know that the anti-rights organizations and advocates of America had to lie to get the Ban passed, and lied to try to keep it. We all know that the limitations imposed by both AWBs are easily circumvented.
And we can now show that of two nearly-identical rifles, one was banned under the Assault Weapon Ban, and one was not.
How does that stop crime? How does that keep people safe? Rifle A and Rifle B are operationally, functionally, and effectively identical, and yet one is permissable under these Bans, and one is not. How does that make any sense at all?
Simply put, it does not, and anyone still supporting Assault Weapon Bans in this day and age of unbounded-data-at-our-very-fingertips is either a baldfaced liar, a damned fool, a petty totalitarian, or some combination of all three, and in no position to be deciding on laws and legislations that would unconstitutionally limit millions of Americans’ rights.