Daily News Stuck in the 90s

We’ve been speaking frankly within our community about the fabricated “assault weapon” issue for nearly 10 years now. There’s no excuse for shoddy journalism like this anymore:

After the shooting, police found an arsenal of eight assault weapons – among them an SKS, every one of them legal to be purchased and owned by anyone without a criminal record.

Assault weapons are designed for warfare and, in the United States, that war is against our police. So why do politicians continue to provide material aid to the enemy?

The SKS was never an “assault weapon,” and is not an assault weapon in its standard military configuration even in very restrictive California. In their standard military configuration, they are legal in all 50 states as far as I know. I’m also going to bet that the Daily News reporters can’t tell me what an assault weapon is, other than any firearm used to shoot at a cop. I’m going to bet they can’t explain to me how it’s different than any other legal firearm, or a hunting rifle. I think this is a safe bet because they know nothing about firearms, and it’s obvious from the reporting.

We’re here, Daily News. You can learn from us. You don’t have to agree with us, but you can at least learn and get the fact rights, and have some idea what you’re talking about. But I guess that’s too much to ask.

11 thoughts on “Daily News Stuck in the 90s”

  1. Even when you consider evil black rifles like the AR-15 and AK-47, it’s funny to call them assault rifles because they are “used in war”. What does that make those bolt-actions rifles used by the Boers, or our Civil War soldiers, then? And what about those muskets used by our Founding Fathers in the Revolutionary War? And when we open “bow-hunting season” we can rest assured that bows and arrows have always only been used for hunting…right?

    Unless it’s clearly used for small game hunting, chances are that the “sporting” rifle you used was originally used–and even designed–for warfare.

  2. The Daily News reporter cannot tell you what an assault weapon is because there is no such thing at a national level. There once was such a thing when it was a legal term in federal code. If there is such a thing in Pennsylvania then you guys have more problems than I realized.

  3. No such thing under PA law. Actually, there is still the assault weapons language in the United States Code, it just has no legal effect since the sunset passage is in there. It hasn’t been formally removed from the code.

  4. That looks like a “cop killer” 10/22 with side-folding stock second from the right in the photo, not an SKS (to me, anyways). I don’t see any “evil” SKS rifles in there, but the rightmost gun does look like some kind of AK clone with an “assault weapon” skeletonized stock obviously designed to spray fire from the hip, indiscriminately killing women and children left and right. I can’t believe civilians are allowed to own stuff like that!

    If what I think I saw there is right (and I could very well be wrong given the nature of the small photo and awkward angle), I wonder if the SKS bit was inserted in the article to try and drum up support for that bill that was being thrown around in the PA legislature a while back? I also like how all those scary banana mags and extended pistol mags were left in the weapons to try and frighten everyone a little bit more.

    I also love these photos of a half dozen rifles and handguns and a couple of boxes of ammo with the “arsenal” implications from the reporters. If the “sheeple” saw the insides of some of our gun cabinets, I think there would be wide-spread fainting and/or pant crapping…

  5. An “assault weapon” is any “weapon” used in an assault. Just ask the ghost of Julius Caesar, who was killed by several illegal “assault” weapons (yes, blades were banned in the City, even bodyguards carried clubs).

  6. There perspective is “Hey don’t confuse me with facts. My mind is make up already.”

  7. “Assault”, in this context, refers to a type of military doctrine also know as “Maneuver Warfare.” “Assault Rifles” are (in short) lightweight, medium “power”, select-fire “machine guns” used in Maneuver Warfare.

    “Assault Weapons” are military-style, NOT-a-machine-gun firearms sold to a civilian market. In other words, they are not military firearms, they are only look-a-likes for civilians.

    Anyone who for a moment believes that an “assault weapon” is only a weapon used in a crime, are not only agreeing with the stupid anti-gun crowd, but are enabling them to redefine the term. A term they now use against us.

    Nice verbal trap we’re walking into. Every time one of us repeats that assault “is a crime, not a weapon” we re-enforce the media’s lies to make military-style rifles look bad to the non-gun people. The people who know nothing about guns except what they hear in sound bites.

    Let us not be defined by our enemies’ shallow views..

  8. In point of fact, the SKS is the reason that California’s Assault Weapons law could be gutted.

    The SKS should have a special place in the heart of all gun rights supporters.


  9. Hang on, if one of our ISAF Partner nations in Afghanistan used those (I don’t think they do, although the AK is a favorite, and some of those folks were scraping the bottom of the defense budget barrel…) they’d be called “patrol rifles,” right? I’m pretty sure it is a patrol rifle is being carried by a LEO or military person and an assault rifle if owned by anyone else, regardless of technical specs…

  10. Whenever I see a blatantly anti-gun editorial or article online, I check to see if there are any reader feedback comments. There were nine comments with this Daily News editorial. Eight of them were clearly pro-gun and the other supported the editorial stance. I find that to be much more of an indication of how most of us among the unwashed masses clearly aren’t buying into the anti-gun talking points like there used to be years ago.

Comments are closed.