The AR-15 and other so-called "assault weapons" are a popular target for anti-gun politicians. They like to argue that they're not good for hunting, as if that matters, and then try to demonize them in every way they possibly can.
But let's also understand that one of their favorite phrases when discussing these rifles isn't just useless as an argument, it's inconsistent as all get out.
This came to mind while looking at a story about how Democrats in Virginia are trying to override some of Gov. Glenn Youngkin's vetoes. That includes an "assault weapon" ban, and the argument about it involved a particular repeat of a popular comment from anti-gun lawmakers:
The 13 bills allowed Democrats to speak on increasing gun control, expanding voting rights and raising the state's minimum wage.
Democratic Delegate Dan Helmer lambasted Youngkin's veto of a bill banning the possession of semi-automatic firearms, often referred to as assault weapons.
"These firearms were designed for the battlefield, not for our streets," the veteran said. "They are too terrified of Donald Trump to act."
Now, the whole "too terrified of Donald Trump" is another popular one, but it's also stupid. They opposed "assault weapon" bans well before Trump rose to the presidency the first time. Pretending this is suddenly new and all because of Trump has to be a symptom of some profound mental disabilities.
But the one I want to focus on is the battlefield comment.
Recommended
I've heard that line or some variation of it at least a thousand times over the years, and that's not an exaggeration for effect. I'm pretty sure I've at least reached that number, if not surpassed it by an order of magnitude.
And the people who say that like to think they're scoring points.
But that argument is beyond ridiculous because if that's the barrier, then a lot of things they claim they have no interest in taking away would be subject to being a problem.
My first hunting rifle was a Lee-Enfield No. 5 Mark I Jungle Carbine chambered in .303 British. It was a smaller, lightweight, bolt-action rifle that was pretty good as a first hunting rifle.
It was also designed for the battlefield, not the woods of Southwest Georgia.
Yet, this is the kind of rifle anti-gun Democrats say they don't want to touch.
What about the ever-popular 1911 handgun? It's a common self-defense weapon seen in holsters all across this nation, carried by law-abiding citizens. It was also developed for the military, adopted by the Army in 1911. Was that not a case of a gun "developed for the battlefield" but now on America's streets?
Both of these are exempt from pretty much every "assault weapon" ban in existence, and for good reason, but if the development history of a firearm is remotely relevant, then why are they?
The short answer is that it's not. It's a worthless claim that, if it had validity, could be used on countless other firearms Democrats maintain they have no interest in banning at all.
Granted, I don't believe them on that, but regardless, the history of a weapon's development doesn't apply to whether it's something we law-abiding Americans should own, particularly when you understand that our Founding Fathers wanted us to have weapons fit for the battlefield when they ratified the Second Amendment in the first place.
We mustn't forget that.
Though, admittedly, it's not like any of these jackwagons will acknowledge any of this.
