That gun was non-scary when my wife bought it, having plain wood furniture.
The gun grabbers in Washington want to call it an "assault weapon" along with my dad's old tube-fed .22 because once you have a scary catch-phrase like "assault weapon" the game becomes: how many different guns can we put that label on and ban them?
As usual, the "gun violence" statistics they trot out to justify this nonsense are mostly suicides.
Then gun nutz come along and say, "You want to call ordinary .22 rifles "assault weapons" and ban them because of suicides? How stupid is that?" This is an indication of our stubborn refusal to enact reasonable gun control.
Whose "stubborn refusal'?
What "reasonable gun control'?
Please clarify, and continue.
Calling ordinary .22 semi-autos "assault weapons" and banning them.
I don't know how to make it more clear. I see nothing reasonable about calling an old tube-fed .22 that holds 14 rounds an "assault weapon" and banning it. I see nothing reasonable about calling the furniture change on my wife's rifle a change to an "assault weapon."
Is .22 really as scary as .223?
considering more powerful rounds used in hunting rifles, why is 223 even considered scary?