OK

Honesty - truthfulness, sincerity, frankness, freedom from deceit or fraud.

I don’t see much honesty when it comes to the proposed AWB nor do I see much honesty from the people who are proponents of it.

In order for there to be honesty I believe the public should be told, in no uncertain terms, that there is absolutely zero functional difference between a semi-automatic rifle chambered for .223 that has a wood stock and a semi-automatic rifle chambered for .223 that has a black plastic stock. No functional difference whatsoever. There is no difference in the cyclic rates of fire of a wood stock semi-automatic rifle and a black plastic stock semi-automatic rifle. The cyclic rate of fire does not change because of moulded black plastic or with the addition of a pistol grip, flash suppressor, bayonet lug, barrel shroud or any other such accessory. Now there is a difference between a semi-automatic rifles rate of fire and its cyclic rate of fire. The cyclic rate of fire is based on how fast the weapon cycles or in layman terms how fast it loads, locks, fires, unlocks and ejects each round, whereas the rate of fire factors in how fast a person can change magazines and the overheating of the barrel.

Since there is no difference in the cyclic rates of fire of wood or plastic stock semi-automatic rifles why bother with legislation that doesn't address cyclic rates of fire? What is the purpose of such legislation? What is the goal of such legislation? Are AWB proponents really afraid of moulded black plastic stocks? I don’t think so. I don’t think they are afraid at all. I think they are fully aware that there is no meaningful difference between the two. Therefore when it comes to the moniker of “assault weapon”, I recommend that we just stop using it. The term “assault weapon” is as dishonest as the term “War on Terror”, both are nothing but bullshit marketing ploys intended to do nothing but play on people's emotions.

It’s time for some Crazy People and truth in advertising. It’s time for those in favour of an “Assault Weapons Ban” to get honest and say what they mean which seems to me to be that they are in favour of a ban on semi-automatic rifles. That’s honest isn't it? Since there is no difference in the cyclic rates of fire between wooden or plastic stock semi-automatic rifles, shouldn't they just admit they want a ban on all semi-automatic rifles? Isn't that the honest thing to tell the American public? But I don't suppose that would go over so well would it? It’s probably unlikely there would be much support for a SARB (Semi-Automatic Rifle Ban).

So no more of this “assault weapon” silliness, let's just call these things what they are which is semi-automatic rifles. Unless of course this isn't an honest debate about guns, violence and saving peoples lives…

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.