Please, don't start crying in terror...but these evil guns live in my basement:
Look carefully, and you'll see that there are a series of "assault" weapons there, from the 1860's era Snyder Enfield (which was, actually, a front-line assault weapon.) To the WWI Era Ross Rifle, dated 1917, and came from the HMS CANADA....it was, quite likely, carried in the trenches before that, so it too can be defined quite clearly as an "Assault" rifle.
The Enfield(s) in the photo are of similar get, and the Longbranch there was most likely used in Korea. Again, a true Assault rifle, used on the front.
So.
The guns in this photo that ARE in fact Assault rifles are the ones you would have me keep...because they have wood stocks....?
I'm sorry, the argument doesn't hold much water if you ask me.
To propose that the 'scary black guns' in the bottom half of the picture (none of which have ever been used in any form of "assault" except against a paper target) are more dangerous than those in the top half simply because of their looks is, in my opinion, stupid.
Would you ban black motorbikes because they are more 'scary' looking than red ones?
I'm going to take one or two of these guns out to the range today. I might even take the old Ross, and let loose a few rounds from a REAL assault rifle, one that's seen the front lines, the trenches, and is still going strong a hundred years later.
NS
