Man you got to wonder how dumb you have to be to waste time cobbling together an image like this:
So this image is related to the article mentioned here.
Now first up go read the article I fisked a few weeks back. First you’ll see the quote is not really true. Yes there IS indeed such thing as an “Assault Weapon”, nobody will actually argue that. We can argue what “Assault Weapon” covers, given that after the 2004 Sunset of the 1994 Assault Weapons ban, the definitions are all over the map, from most states not having that definition at all, to some states having the ’94 definitions, and others having less strict, or more strict rules.
The argument that WAS ACTUALLY made was the term “Assault Weapon” is a bogus term cooked up by anti-gun people, and not a valid term for a firearm. I will note that federally the AR-15 rifle, or an Uzi Pistol, or the Saiga 12 Shotgun are considered by the ATF as a “Rifle”, a “Pistol”, and a “Shotgun” respectively, nothing more, and nothing less. Now in the state of Massachusetts depending on the features on these guns CAN be considered “Assault Weapons”, But I can own an AR-15 in this state that isn’t an “Assault Weapon”, but in California it IS! So nationally there really isn’t such a thing as an “Assault Weapon”, but some states that classification might exist, and since it’s different in every state, the definition really isn’t worth much.
OK now onto the bigger problem, what are the cited magazines and books ACTUALLY talking about. There are 11 images and I’ll simply number them 1-11 starting at the top left, and moving left-to-right, and top to bottom.
So 1-6 were gun guides that were created between 1994 and 2004, in this time there WAS a federal definition of “Assault Weapon”, and because these guns were treated differently from the ATF, they were treated differently by buyers and collectors. Note that just because the term “Assault Weapon” was used by a gun magazine does NOT mean they INVENTED the term, these books were written AFTER the laws were passed, and therefore the term “Assault Weapon” was defined previously. Also while I haven’t read these books, I will note that many of the guns pictured are obviously full-auto weapons. Not sure if it covers those guns, or they’re just stock images they got the rights to, still two of the cover images feature the H&K MP7 which is technically a PDW or SMG, and the H&K G36 Assault Rifle. All are guns that have never really been commercially sold in America, so I’m not sure why they’re on the cover if it’s about “Assault Weapons” which by definition are civilian arms, not military weapons.
Now things get a little more silly, as NONE of the other magazines use the term “Assault Weapon”. #8 and #11 are books on military weapons. Both are Assault Rifles, not “Assault Weapons”, and despite the similarity in the terms they’re about as similar as the terms “pickup truck” and “Hand Truck”.
Now image #7 refers to an Uzi “Assault Pistol”, which is likely defined by the post-94 definition of this pistol as an “Assault Weapon”, and Images #9 & 10 talk about “Assault Rifles”. #9 was from 1984 issue back when you could simply buy a real-deal Assault Rifle (as in full-auto capability) new off the rack at your local gun store, with nothing more than an ATF tax stamp. Not sure about #10, but from the looks of it, it’s probably in the same time-line and could very well be talking about full-auto rifles.
It’s just dishonest and stupid. Also hilarious that the images are small, illegible, and #9 is intentionally blurred. Whatever they are trying to accomplish with this, it simply isn’t true.