“Assault weapons” bans are back on the table, it seems, after Charlie Kirk’s murder. Any excuse to push gun control, I suppose.
Frankly, it shouldn’t even be coming up. Gun control is misguided, at best, and downright evil, at worst.
But here we are even though anti-2A activists can’t define what an assault weapon is other than it looks scary. And the tragic irony is that an assault weapons ban wouldn’t have prevented the murder of Charlie Kirk.
Why?
Because the person who shot and killed Kirk didn’t use an assault weapon or an assault rifle to do the horrible deed.
He used a hunting rifle which wouldn’t get banned in an assault weapons ban. Tyler Grey writes,
The rifle says it all. A Mauser .30-06 bolt-action is the tool of a casual hunter, not a professional killer.Â
That’s right, it was a hunting rifle. And in case you’re wondering what Grey’s qualifications are to be able to make that statement, Grey also writes,
As an ex-U.S. Army Special Operations sniper, I’ve seen a lot of speculation online, and I want to cut through some of the noise.
As a former special operations sniper, I think it likely that he knows what he’s talking about, and he says that Kirk’s murder wasn’t some kind of well-organized operation. It was a kid with a chip on his shoulder and a hunting rifle (not an “assault weapon”).
So, while anti-2A activists want to spout off about banning “scary looking” guns like AR-15s and AK-47s, hunting rifles like that Mauser .30-06 bolt-action would completely fall through their grasping hands.
All because they have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about when it comes to guns.
But it’s obviously too much to ask to have people wanting to create legislation about firearms to actually know what they’re wanting to regulate.
Frankly, it’s about time that those anti-2A clowns were voted out of office.
