Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Excellent Question...

An Unanswered Question From Last Night’s Debate
If bayonets are obsolete, why is a bayonet lug something that makes a rifle an "assault weapon"?
(thanks to Robb Allen in chat for the link)

I also noticed something: Obama referred to Russia as not being a threat, then some 20 minutes later said that Russia was one of the countries that we needed to be mindful of when taking action in the Asian theater. The rhetoric is noticeably two-faced - on the one hand, Obama wants us to believe that Russia is no longer a credible threat to America; on the other hand, we need to watch them when we are thinking about action in that part of the world?

It's the same with "assault weapons" - Obama mentioned reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban in the last debate - and then immediately went on to talk about "cheap handguns". Then he makes the off-handed comment about bayonets and horses being obsolete - neglecting the simple fact that ZOMG BAYONET LUG is one of the features that makes a standard semi-automatic rifle a ZOMG ASSAULT WEAPON. It's either obsolete or it's a ZOMG DEADLY FEATURE; you can't have it both ways.

Well, unless you have a (D) after your name, that is...

That is all.


Dave H said...

The list of eeevil features comes from a study the BATF did in 1989. They wanted to identify common characteristics of rifles that were denied importation permits because they were not "suitable for sporting purposes." That list of characteristics is what eventually became the definition of an "assault rifle" in the AWB, so lovingly preserved in MA and NY state law. It's not that bayonet lugs are bad, it's that bad guns have bayonet lugs. Or folding stocks, or removable magazines, or grenade launchers... I'm sure you know the list.

(I'm also sure you recognize the thought process: "Evil people have guns, so people who have guns are evil.")

A review of that study by the Treasury Department in 1998 confirmed what BATF had concluded in 1989, plus added "large capapcity detachable magazines" to the list. The result of that review is here.

Old NFO said...

They're STILL issued to the Marines... :-) And the Army STILL has horses!

Heath J said...

I got a bayonet in my gear issue, And I'm pretty sure we've got a bigger standing force now than we did in 1916.

Not to take away from your point theough, Jay. BS as usual from the Dems.

Daniel in Brookline said...

President Obama doesn't "want us to believe that Russia is no longer a credible threat to America". What he wanted was to make fun of Romney in what he thought would make a cute "gotcha!" (It was nothing of the sort... but then, the President spent much more time last night trying to be clever than he did actually saying anything substantive.)

As others have pointed out, the President doesn't seem to believe in being consistent. He says what he thinks will get him past the issue of the moment, whether or not he said the opposite last week. And he usually preceeds it with "As I've always said..."

Frankly, I doubt very much that the President could identify either a bayonet or a bayonet lug. "Isn't that one of those things corpse-men use?"

Stretch said...

Hey! During the AWB there was not a single (Literally) drive-by stabbing.
So there!!

Ed said...

The military pattern, single-shot Brown Bess musket accepted a bayonet, and was used by militia in the American Colonies:


What some think is a front sight on the Brown Bess was the bayonet lug, which secured the bayonet to the musket barrel.

Many militia at the time of the American Revolution lacked bayonets for their firearms, which in peacetime were used for hunting:


Sticking a British soldier with a bayonet was never considered "sporting".

Andie said...

Just as a point of interest, the actual quote was: "You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines."
per http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82712_Page5.html

Not that I disagree with the overall consensus regarding the AW and two-faced commentary, but I am pro-accuracy when possible. ;)

PS I really like reading what you all have to say because I learn a LOT--thanks!

Mr Evilwrench said...

You'd think barky would be all for horses and bayonets; a horse with a bayonet would be a unicorn, and we're going to need those unicorn farts to power our economy.