As we’ve long noted, the term is dubious because it implies that people think assault weapons are something they are not – mainly military firearms. While this debate will likely continue… we were shocked by some of the comments:

“And accurately labelled [sic] in the original. It is used for assaults. I have hunted numerous times, and have yet to see someone taking down a deer with an AR-15 or an AK-37 [sic].”

This just shows arrogance. If this guy doesn’t want to hunt with an AR-15 it must not be good enough for anyone else. And this notion of “it is used for assaults” is nonsense and an utter simplification. The Germans who produced the first assault rifle, the StG44 were surely on the defensive in 1944 and 1945 but used the small arm. This is like saying only a sniper can use a sniper rifle. Nonsense.

And there is this comment:

“Are assualt [sic] weapons fully automatic? I thought fully automatic guns were against the law?”

The uninformed will comment on an issue they clearly don’t understand, and yet offer their opinion. This could describe most people who say they don’t like guns. That comment received this response:

“No and no, the game they are playing is wordplay to delegitimize [sic] any effort to control unrestricted sales of ‘assault style’ weapons. Fully automatic weapons are available with a collectors [sic] license for sure, and maybe other ways as well. But since the weapons that are being sold with no provision for better judgement [sic] are just high-capacity repeating rifles TECHNICALLY, the gun lobby objects. But no hunters need to be able to fire 30 rounds one after another out of a pistol, nor do they need a banana-clips worth of shells to repeatedly fire to bring down a deer. No one even wants to restrict their ability to purchase these weapons, but they would like you to sign for them when you happen to be purchasing multiples in a week. The problem to the armed public is the resemblance of these rifles to actual assault rifles, like the ones brought to campaign rallies to taunt people who aren’t real keen on mass-shootings that our country is famous for.”

And here we get back to the point previously noted that hunters don’t need the guns. Well, what about sport shooters? Of course President Obama is the one who has noted that he isn’t going to restrict the Second Amendment as it relates to sportsman, which goes back to our point. The Second Amendment isn’t about hunters! It is about the rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms! This statement about hunting shows the nonsense involved by those who don’t care about the Second Amendment. Even if this person making the statement cared about hunting, he clearly isn’t thinking beyond it.

And there is more:

“I’d personally consider an ‘assault rifle’ to be a weapon other than a handgun (ex: semi-automatic or revolver) or submachine gun (ex: FN Herstal P90, Tec-DC9, H&K MP5) that can fire high-powered rounds such as .223cal, .308cal, or 7.62mm with a selective fire capability. Many tend to have a lever built into the trigger assembly for selecting single-shot, multi-round burst, or safety-on. The category especially includes military-derived rifles like the AR-15/M4 family used by many US and NATO forces, Kalashnikov-style rifles (AK-47, AKM, AK-74) that originated from the former USSR, and newer high-tech weapons from Europe like the FN Herstal SCAR, H&K G36, or SIG-Sauer 556. I think ‘assault rifle’ is a perfectly accurate term. These rifles were all designed and mass-produced to be (quite literally) anti-personnel weapons in a combat situation. They were NOT designed with residential protection, competitive shooting, or hunting in mind- otherwise there would be no need to sell a modified version of any of the above rifles to the general public. For example, you cannot wisely use an AR-15 rifle to protect your home from a burglar who is inside- the penetration properties of a high-powered weapon would make the risk to your family in an adjacent room a serious concern. There’s a reason that police SWAT units rarely use assault rifles for operations inside an occupied building.”

There we have it. A liberal who likes to shoot a bit and knows something or two about guns. He understand the terminology and then doesn’t waste a breath saying why he doesn’t think anyone needs the guns.

Of course he wrong to say “a weapon other than a handgun or submachine gun.” That is simplifying the issue. As for him saying these were “all designed and mass produced to be (quite literally) anti-personnel weapons in a combat situation” is only semi-accurate as he fails to note that the commercial models are semi-automatic only. The key feature of a true assault weapon is the selectable fire from fully automatic to semi-automatic depending on the needs.

His statement that it can’t be used in self defense is nonsensical as well. The truth is that most hunting rifles can’t be used for self defense for the same reason. So what the poster attempts to do is offer the numerous reasons why you shouldn’t have the gun, and never mentions any reasons why it could be used, namely sport shooting. The AR-15, AK-47 and other semi-automatics are good sport shooting firearms. They are popular for those uses.

But this post and comments show how narrow minded liberals are once they made up their mind on the topic of firearms.

This weekend The Monitor ran a story titled, “Mexican national jailed for allegedly smuggling ammunition,” and it included this passage:

“Authorities report that Martinez-Bernache was arrested Wednesday at the Gateway International Bridge in Brownsville after he attempted to smuggle 4,000 cartridges of .223 caliber ammunition and 1,000 cartridges of 7.62 caliber ammunition without a license.

“This type of ammunition is commonly used in high-powered assault rifles, authorities said.”

If authorities said that this was “used in high-powered assault rifles,” than those authorities prove they aren’t much of a gun authority.

Here is the problem. The .223 caliber ammunition is for the AR-15 or M-16, and it was actually designed to be a lower-powered bullet than the .30 caliber that was used in the M1 or M14. Those could be considered “high-powered,” but the .223 is generally considered an intermediate cartridge and thus not technically “high-powered.”

The other problem is that the 7.62 caliber ammunition comes in 7.62x54mmR, which is the old Russian standard for the WWI era bolt action rifles, as well as World War II Soviet era semi-automatic rifles. But the Soviets were among the first to see that this high-powered round was over-powered for combat needs, and created the 7.62x39mm round for the SKS. This was later used in the AK-47, which is considered an assault weapon, while the semi-automatic versions could be deemed assault weapon styled.

The point is that the 7.62x39mm is also an intermediate round, so this story is just another example of media misinformation.

But the problem is that the AK-47 readily available isn’t the same type of gun used by most of the soldiers, insurgents and terrorists. It might look like a military weapon, but it fires a less power (intermediate caliber) bullet than most hunting rifles, and it isn’t available commercially in anything but semi-automatic. So why does it strike fear into the hearts of minds of anti-gun zealots? And why were assault weapons banned?

To understand this, we must understand what is and what is not an assault rifle. The first true “assault rifle” was developed by the Germans in World War II, and it was the StG44 (later known as the MP44). The gun fired a brand new round, known as the 7.92x33mm Kurz, which was designed to be a lighter, more maneuverable rifle round that was to bridge the gap between submachine guns and rifles. The round that was created took the traditional rifle round of the German Army, the 7.92x57mm and reduced it in size. Thus the new StG44 fired a smaller bullet round than the rifle. This new gun, which was designed during the war was reportedly developed as the MP43/MP44 (maschinenpistole or machine pistol) as Adolf Hitler had stated that a new rifle wasn’t needed. But as testing advanced the Nazi leader saw the possibilities and one story is that he personally decreed that it be named “Sturmgewehr” or “assault rifle.” Thus what does “assault rifle” really mean?

To military planners and thinkers the assault rifle – also assault weapon – was designed for a new type of close quarters combat. There is some irony in the fact that these weapons were designed and improved during the early days of the Cold War when atomic bombs could level a whole city from a great distance. It seemed that two types of combat were considered – that being the really far away and the really up close and personal.

Various nations devised new types of small arms that used these smaller intermediate rounds. The Soviets developed the AK-47 and the US developed the M-16. Both are true assault rifles, and both are available in commercial versions. The important distinction is that the commercial versions have the “cosmetic” look and that’s about it. A true assault rifle has selective fire, meaning it can fire semi-automatic (one pull of the trigger for one round) as well as fully automatic (pull the trigger like a machine gun). The US military opted for a burst fire instead, in part to make the M-16 more accurate and to conserve ammo in the field. Regardless, commercial versions only offered (and continue to offer) the semi-auto option.

Now, this brings up an interesting point because some weapons such as the SKS were developed as a semi-automatic rifle with the intermediate cartridge, and to some legislators fall into the category of “assault weapons.” To military planners this is incorrect and this rifle is more accurately a carbine.

The point that is important to note is that regardless of what the mainstream says, regardless of what the President of Mexico may claim and regardless of what any anti-gun zealot proclaims, the absolute truth is that you cannot buy a military assault rifle at a gun shop and walk out the door. There are fully automatic versions that people buy, but these require a special transfer stamp and cost $10,000 typically or more. The $300 semi-auto AK-47 that show up at gun shops and gun shows are commercial versions, and cannot be easily (if at all by some accounts) converted to fully automatic fire. These firearms look the part but looks can be deceiving.

And this brings us to another point. What are some of the factors that determine if a gun is an assault rifle, since the fully automatic part is already a moot point? One point is the fact that the gun may have a pistol grip handle instead of a rifle style stock. That’s a tricky issue because the SKS has the rifle stock (and yet again is often labeled an assault rifle). Another point is that the gun may have a bayonet lug. Seriously, a gun that can be fitted with a bayonet lug could be considered an assault rifle. This issue comes up because it allowed (and continues to allow) some communities to ban rifles – such as an M1 Carbine – because they have characteristics of an assault rifle.

The truth is that most people that discuss assault rifles cannot even tell you what makes it an assault weapon. Typically the media paints a picture that these are fully automatic weapons used by the military. As you can see the truth can be deceiving, but it is the media that is being deceiving about the truth of assault rifles.

Fascitelli calls for several things:

“(A) ban guns in all state, county and city parks, where we have now seen more than once that a toxic combination of alcohol, firearms and elevated testosterone on a sunny day can have deadly consequences… Let’s make our parks gun-free zones where families can gather with peace of mind without the worry of sudden death to innocent loved ones (and let’s have our park rangers make spot checks to ensure that no one does indeed have a gun in their possession). “

Would a criminal follow the ban? Wouldn’t this just put law-abiding citizens at risk if a criminal did have a gun? Oh, but Fascitelli saw our question coming, so he offers the “let’s have our park rangers make spot checks.” Yeah, as if park rangers don’t have enough to do already, and if any city or state budget could handle such a move.

Furthermore, this is nonsense. Park rangers are not exactly law enforcement and can’t deal, nor should they deal with situations that could turn violent and deadly. What happens when a park ranger does do a spot check and finds someone with a gun? Does Mr. Fascitelli suggest arming – and training – park rangers? Wouldn’t this bring the very guns back into the park?

But Fascitelli further proves his ignorance on the issue when he writes:

“Second, let’s close the gun-show loophole and insist on mandatory background checks on all gun purchases. More than one-fourth of juvenile crimes involve guns procured from gun shows, according to a survey by the Portland Police Department. Insisting that felons, the mentally ill and underage juveniles do not have easy access to handguns or military assault weapons is not an infringement on Second Amendment rights.”

Is that statistic on sales even accurate? We did a search online and all that was found was “A Report by Americans for Gun Safety Foundation” dated April 2001. This would confirm Fascitelli’s statement, but this report is nearly a decade ago. For the record it states:

“Over a two-year period, Portland police confiscated several hundred guns from area gang members. 73 of the 265 successful traces indicated that the guns originated from gun shows.”

The other point that needs clarification is the use of “military assault weapons.” This is a term that is thrown around considerably by the anti-gun crowd, but it is far from accurate and far from fair. A semi-automatic AK-47 is not, repeat not a “military assault weapon,” of the type used by military forces around the world. Nor are the various commercial versions of the M-16/M-4/AR-15. These may look like a military weapon but they function very differently. What is the big deal we ask with guns that look like military guns? They’re no more accurate than many semi-automatic hunting weapons, and in the case of some firearms – such as the AK-47 – the hunting versions are often vastly more accurate and powerful.

Fascitelli’s group has previously called for a ban on “military assault weapons,” but this group should already know that true military weapons are banned in most private hands. It is virtually impossible to buy a military version of current issue weapons, unless you are in law-enforcement. But that clouds the facts.

Finally it is hard for us to believe Fascitelli’s statements in general. He states:

“We need to cut through the emotional and irrational rhetoric about Second Amendments rights and find the middle ground between personal freedoms and public safety.”

We’d like to know what the “middle ground” actually is, especially from the president of Washington Ceasefire. Is their motives really about reducing gun violence or is it just about reducing guns?

“…five automatic guns, two pistols, numerous rounds of ammunition, 23 loaded magazines, 10 rifle slings and other gun accessories.”

The San Diego Crime Examiner, which is part of Examiner.com included a bit more information, noting that U.S. Customs and Border Protection found several weapons. The site noted:

“The weapons included three P90 standard machine guns, a M-4 machine gun, and one AK 47 machine gun, the CBP said. The weapons stash also included a 5.7 semi-automatic handgun and a 10 mm Colt semi-automatic.”

No doubt some in the mainstream media, as well as numerous politicians will try to spin this into something it is not. First, it is not clear if the weapons are in fact “automatic,” which is a point that needs to be crystal clear. Several sources state the weapons to be “machine guns,” but as many firearm enthusiasts know only the P90 could rightfully be called a “machine gun.” The M-4 is a carbine, based on the M-16 assault rifle/AR-15 semi-automatic rifle; while the AK-47 is simply an assault rifle/semi-automatic rifle.

And here too the wording is the key. The “P90 standard machine gun” is a Belgian made submachine gun, which is used by numerous military, paramilitary and police units around the word. The PS90 is the semi-automatic commercial version. So the key is whether these were in fact “fully automatic” weapons, which wouldn’t be something you could buy at just any gun show. The commercial version, the PS90, also retails for $1800 or more, and it isn’t a gun that is typically stocked at many gun shows.

In other words there is much more to this story than just a 19-year-old who went north of the border to buy a few guns. This is one we’ll be watching very closely.

Not only is this yet another high-powered weapon that is now on the street, but our faith in the police is once again shaken. This is just the latest example of a police officer’s gun being stolen, and it begs the question as to why any of these weapons were left in the vehicles? Is this just another case of bad judgment? So again, who guards the guards in this country?