"Assault Rifles"
The truth about “assault weapons”
By @gulag_.ball (Instagram)
Unless you’ve been actively avoiding the media for the past number of decades (and who could blame you), you’ve likely heard the term “assault weapons” thrown around. However, words are quite unable to adequately describe how poor of a term this is to describe any firearm.
There are a few things to know when trying to decipher this term. The first thing is the type of bullet it fires. There are three main types of cartridges: rifle, intermediate, and pistol. Rifle, or “full-size/full-power” cartridges, are usually of .30 caliber diameter or greater and are effective of ranges in excess of 1000 meters. An example of this is the 7.62x51mm NATO.
Intermediate cartridges are smaller than rifle rounds, but are effective at less range. They were developed to help bridge the gap between submachine guns (more on that later) and full-size rifles for infantry and paratrooper use. The size of intermediate cartridges differs depending on the location. Two of the most popular in the world include the 7.62x39mm M43 and the 5.56x45mm NATO. The latter of which is fired by the legendary AR-15 platform. The first is utilized by the just as famous Kalashnikov rifles.
Lastly, pistol cartridges are small, close-range but high-velocity rounds. An example is the 9x19mm Luger, which is also called the Parabellum. There are also magnum pistol rounds, which are more powerful but are still only useful at close range and are used almost exclusively in revolvers. Examples include the .44 magnum, .50 action express, and the godly .500 Magnum.
There are also some other subclasses of cartridges, such as the Personal Defense Weapon round, which lie somewhere between pistol and intermediate cartridges. These are made for compact, armour-piercing weapons like the MP7 and P90.
But why are cartridges important? Well, the classification and uses of weapons largely depends on the bullet it fires. A battle rifle is a magazine-fed and select-fire infantry weapon that uses full-power rifle cartridges. The M14, H&K G3, and FN FAL rifles are examples of battle rifles. For most of the Cold War, battle rifles were the go-to weapons of choice for many NATO countries. Now, many battle rifles are used as marksman weapons. When someone refers to an “assault rifle,” they generally think of any infantry rifle that is magazine-fed and select-fire, like the battle rifle, but fires an intermediate cartridge. Submachine guns are similar, but they fire a pistol round instead. Also, don’t confuse PDWs and SMGs, just a little friendly advice from the firearm fanatics out there. Seriously, they’ll chew you up.
Apart from battle rifles, assault rifles, SMGs, and PDWs, there are many other weapon classes that are used. But, more often than not, they aren’t actually designed for the military. Take a look at an AR-15; the definitive black, scary army rifle. An absolute killing machine, right? Now, take a look at a Ruger Mini 14. Wooden, one-piece stock and furniture, looks like a normal hunting rifle. Innocent enough. Now, let’s compare the two. First, the differences. Well, the AR-15 has that pistol grip for comfort and stability. And the Mini 14 just has a normal stock grip. Having fired both, I can tell you that the pistol grip and retractable stock have no advantage over a normal rifle stock grip. The ergonomics are different, but they both feel nice. That’s why both designs have been around for years. A Ruger Mini 14 doesn’t have a buffer tube which means there is slightly more recoil, but the grip on a Mini-14 is more in-line with the barrel so this is pretty much entirely canceled out. The 5.56mm has very little kick to it, anyways. Hell, even Kel-Tec makes a pistol variant that you can shoot one-handed.
One HUGELY noticeable difference between the Ruger Mini 14 and the AR-15 doesn’t even have to do with the performance. It’s with the aftermarket. You can use aftermarket parts to turn any old AR-15 into a customizable rifle that you can outfit for hunting, competition, sports, home defense, or just as a range toy. When you buy a Mini 14, you get a Mini 14. There isn’t a whole lot of customization. The customization doesn’t make it “more deadly,” it just optimizes a firearm for different roles. A Mini-14 is good for hunting, competition, and sports, like an AR-15, but an AR is probably better for home defense. Just a bit of friendly advice.
Now to the similarities. They are both semi-automatic, magazine-fed, gas-operated, “military-style” 5.56mm rifles. Wait… what? “Military-style?” Well, yes, of course. The AR-15 has been the standard issue rifle of the only country with a flag on the moon for over 50 years, as well as finding fantastic success in the civilian market. However, before that, the M14 battle rifle was adopted as a standard issue rifle, but its time was a bit short-lived, despite being an absolute beast. The Mini 14 is, quite literally, a scaled-down version of the M14 made to fire a smaller cartridge. Aesthetically, they are nearly identical, and the operation is the same, too. This is exactly why the term “military style” is a very bad term to use when identifying rifles.
So, back on-topic; why are “military style” rifles always considered to be “assault weapons?” It’s all about the left’s demonization of guns. If one firearm is bad, they’re all bad. One mentally deranged man uses an AR-15 to commit mass-murder in an act of domestic terrorism. That means all AR-15s are bad to them. Let’s put this into perspective. An African-American woman robs a store. That makes all black people criminals, right? Of course not. The only people who think so are true racists. But it doesn’t only stop there. Since the left thinks that one rifle is bad, now all guns are bad. Rifles, pistols, pistol carbines, subguns… That’s like saying not only are all black people bad, but all men are bad too. So we couldn’t stop at racism, we had to go to sexism too. This can go any way, too- white women, black men, white men… The analogy remains the same.
The classification of firearms is ALWAYS poorly done by the left. I have never once seen a reasonable argument for gun control by any leftist or liberal, and believe me when I say I searched for quite a while. Every day for two hours for two weeks, to be exact. The reason they are all so bad is because they have no idea what it is that they are actually talking about. They have no idea what the real classification of firearms are; they are just told that they are all bad. All of them! “Uuuuhhhh yeah black men are more likely to commit crimes so all black people and all men are bad.” See how dumb that sounds? It’s the same exact concept.
So one such argument for gun control comes from the semi-automatic part, not the “military-style.” With a higher rate of fire, you can kill more people. That is factual, that’s why semi- and full-auto were developed in the first place. But the Second Amendment was written before semi- and full-auto were introduced. Though that’s true, there were still rapid-fire weapons at the time. Stephen Crowder from Louder with Crowder has a fantastic video on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CquUBWHU2_s He talks about how liberals claim that the Second Amendment was written with single-shot muzzle loading muskets in mind, but that just isn’t the case. Also one firearm he forgot to mention are volley guns. Volley guns were essentially muskets with 2, 3, 5, 10, up to 20 barrels that peppered the battlefield with lead. Not only were the founding fathers aware of these rapid-fire guns, but they endorsed them. They had the opportunity to restrict fire rate, but they decided not to, and here’s why:
The true purpose of the Second Amendment wasn’t to defend against the British. It was to give the people the ability to overthrow the government, should the need ever arise. They probably acknowledged the fact that rapid-fire weapons would allow the people to do that easier if they had to, so they decided to not outlaw them.
Gun control does not work. It does nothing but leave law-abiding citizens without means of protection, hunting, or a great source of fun. Even worse, the government attempting to take away firearms will 100% certainly end in the feds getting overthrown, which would result in even more deaths. Ironic, isn’t it? The leftist polities intended to solve a problem just worsen the problem.
Thank you very much for reading this article. If you get the chance, follow my Instagram account @gulag_.ball so you can see more. I primarily post memes and political content. Also thanks to @conservative_news101 for his help!