Hey, these assault weapons are based on a deadly fantasy
The guns, some of which come in camouflage and desert khaki, bristle with features useful only to an infantry soldier or a special-forces operative. A flash suppressor on the end of a barrel makes it possible to shoot at night without a blinding flare. Quick-change magazines let troops reload easily. Barrel shrouds allow precise control without fear of burns from a muzzle that grows hot after multiple rounds are fired. But now anyone can own these guns, and millions are in civilian hands.
“There is an allure to this weapon that makes it unusually attractive,” Scott Knight, former chairman of the International Chiefs of Police Firearms Committee, told USA Today, speaking of the Bushmaster rifles. “The way it looks, the way it handles — it screams assault weapon.”
The company’s catalog and ads show soldiers moving on patrol through jungles, Bushmasters at the ready. “When you need to perform under pressure, Bushmaster delivers,” says the advertising copy, superimposed over the silhouette of a soldier holding his helmet against the backdrop of an American flag. “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered,” said a 2010 catalog, peddling an assault rifle billed as “the ultimate military combat weapons system.” (Available to anyone for $2,500.)
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
Barrel shrouds?
Please take this person shooting. There is so much ignorance displayed in the first two paragraphs of this ridiculous article.
I really like my bushmaster AK-15 made by PSA. I put on an aftermarket barrel shroud, flash hider with integrated spikes for anti-personnel use, a single point sling adapter for quick transitions to sidearms, and a gang of high capacity assault clips.
It even has a ergo pistol grip, Vertical foregrip, and a collapsible stock.
Most liberals would have a heart attack just glancing at this scary assault warfare battle paramilitary machine gun rifle.
tom daschle concerned on December 29, 2012 at 2:22 PM
What use could a civilian possibly have for these deadly murder sticks? And for that matter, why do civilians need Jeeps and Humvees?
steebo77 on December 29, 2012 at 2:22 PM
*clutches pearls* NOT desert cam too?
And the progressive elites are certain they know who the “right hands” are of course. Police, military, the TSA and the Red Guards when that day comes along, just not your average citizen.
sharrukin on December 29, 2012 at 2:24 PM
Wrong premise, fool. The 2nd has nothing to do with either. Learn it! You don’t deserve to work/live freely, if you don’t know this.
The only fragile mind is the writer of the editorial.
Schadenfreude on December 29, 2012 at 2:24 PM
The term “Bushmaster” must be particularly offensive or scary to these twags.
The ignorant author used “Bushmaster” 10 times.
tom daschle concerned on December 29, 2012 at 2:25 PM
There’s no such thing as an assault weapon. There are only weapons that can be used either for assault or defense and considering the zealotry exhibited in the anti-gunners’ desire to spread their tyrannies across the country, it’s all the more important to have weapons with as many self-defense empowering features as possible available to the public in order to protect our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Dusty on December 29, 2012 at 2:26 PM
FIFY.
Rebar on December 29, 2012 at 2:27 PM
Y’all are just mad that the author is hitting exactly the ways these weapons allow chicken hawks to fulfill their wargames fantasy. They are violence porn, little more.
libfreeordie on December 29, 2012 at 2:28 PM
Then, clearly NYT, we need to put severe restrictions on the First Amendment, to punish this type of improper speech.
Sometimes the Old Grey Wh0re doesn’t think these things through…
JohnGalt23 on December 29, 2012 at 2:28 PM
They also come in pink.
Blake on December 29, 2012 at 2:29 PM
It doesn’t matter what it is … the government has no authority to disarm citizens.
darwin on December 29, 2012 at 2:29 PM
10 USC s311
So really, we should all have AR-15s.
rbj on December 29, 2012 at 2:30 PM
“Deadly fantasy”?
No, you’re thinking of “gun-free zones”.
Socratease on December 29, 2012 at 2:30 PM
Shouldn’t you then be staying out of our bedrooms?
sharrukin on December 29, 2012 at 2:35 PM
Thread winner.
CW on December 29, 2012 at 2:35 PM
Why do they keep mis-spelling “Bushampster” ?
Kenosha Kid on December 29, 2012 at 2:35 PM
Oh, please, perfesser. “Chicken Hawks” is so 9/10. Besides, you voted twice for a Vice President who dodged the draft the exact same number of times as Dick Cheney. Besides, in real life chicken hawks are vicious animals. I see them at work all the time out here in the Real World.
And you don’t even know who the author is, so how can you praise him or her? For all we know, this steaming heap was written by a committee.
Now, before I give you your grade, please define “violence porn” for us.
(Starts stopwatch)
Del Dolemonte on December 29, 2012 at 2:36 PM
Even if…… so what? The number who use these guns illegally are such a small number it doesn’t even matter. Oh and SMD you weasel.
CW on December 29, 2012 at 2:36 PM
So when the day comes, will you be unarmed? Just wondering…
BigGator5 on December 29, 2012 at 2:37 PM
You’re the one who appears to have a fantasy about gun owners.
gwelf on December 29, 2012 at 2:37 PM
Molon labe
growl on December 29, 2012 at 2:37 PM
BTW everyone this is not the guy who normally pens under the Libfreeordie nic. It is one of his lovers. Whey libfree let’s his “friends” write under his name is beyond me but off course so is santorum.
CW on December 29, 2012 at 2:40 PM
libfreeordie,
And to think with arguments like that you keep losing the gun control debate.
rob verdi on December 29, 2012 at 2:41 PM
What about bold new restrictions on the first amendment to prevent “voyerism porn” of media outlets in the wake of massacres?
gwelf on December 29, 2012 at 2:41 PM
Was it “violence porn” that lead to shop owners to protect themselves and their livelihoods during riots in LA?
gwelf on December 29, 2012 at 2:43 PM
libfreeordie on December 29, 2012 at 2:28 PM
Says the eunuch, second only to Obama.
You don’t deserve your liberties but real men defend them for you.
Schadenfreude on December 29, 2012 at 2:44 PM
If you’ll allow me…
Violence porn is media, usually televisual or motion picture, designed to entertain by depicting realistic images and sounds of infliction of violence on living things, by living things, usually human in both cases. Such depictions are rendered pornographic by a dearth of other entertaining qualities, such as coherent story line or emotive acting. Examples of such are films such as Natural Born Killers and Saw.
One should note that the production, distribution, and consumption of such media is protected by the very same US Constitution that protects an individual’s rights to bear firearms capable of service in defense of one’s country, from enemies both foreign and domestic.
So, there’s that…
JohnGalt23 on December 29, 2012 at 2:45 PM
I think that’s the same thing we call ‘handguards’ on my Mauser rifles…
affenhauer on December 29, 2012 at 2:46 PM
Liberals cannot keep fantasy versus reality straight.
CW on December 29, 2012 at 2:46 PM
Then put a “silencer” on it; that’ll shut the d@mn thing up.
Kraken on December 29, 2012 at 2:52 PM
[JohnGalt23 on December 29, 2012 at 2:28 PM]
I went through the 2012 they link to (not the 2010 they refer to) and of the dozen or so showing people, there was one ad that was clearly of soldiers moving through ‘jungle’, with the caption “… the professional choice of law enforcement and defenders of freedom around the world. ….”
Obviously Bushmaster is marketing to those interested in defense weapons.
Dusty on December 29, 2012 at 2:55 PM
yup, losers like Lanza and James Holmes use these weapons to punish others for their own lack of getting laid. the “manhood” campaign by the gun lobby in the name of greed sure is great for our country ay?
cigarette companies put profits over lives for years, so why should the gun lobby be any different? as long as they convince idiots like those here at Hot Air that this is an issue of “constitutional rights” and not just about lining their pockets, nothing will change and the Lanzas etcwill continue to massacre at will. God bless amuurica!
DBear on December 29, 2012 at 2:55 PM
^^^ liberal pseudo-confucius
hahahahahaha
darwin on December 29, 2012 at 2:58 PM
Actually violent crime is down while there are more of these weapons than ever. You’re not real bright.
Oh and there really is a 2nd Amendment.
CW on December 29, 2012 at 2:59 PM
Projection as you punish use with the most inane of posts.
CW on December 29, 2012 at 2:59 PM
I wonder if the “D” in DBear stands for dummy or dunce? Maybe dense?
darwin on December 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM
A Human Right
tom daschle concerned on December 29, 2012 at 3:01 PM
Here’s your violent porn, lib..
Bushmaster XM15E2S, 20″ hbar. Scoped. Extra barrel 16″ flat top with eotech 512. bayonet lug mounted laser/halogen. Coupled 30 round mags. Many to spare. Tritium front blade. Collapsable stock with compartment for extra 123 batteries. Tactical sling. Ruger P95 15+1, extra mags, North American arms .22lr in an ankle holster.
It only becomes violent porn when you try to take it. Otherwise, it just protects me and mine in a dangerous world 50 miles north of drug cartels armed by eric holder.
wolly4321 on December 29, 2012 at 3:04 PM
yup I would implore you to go ahead and use it to try and overthrow the government. I’m sure your arsenal is a match for the military industrial complex you conservatives have created
DBear on December 29, 2012 at 3:05 PM
^ HELPFUL.
Kenosha Kid on December 29, 2012 at 3:05 PM
probably your only “gun” that works
DBear on December 29, 2012 at 3:06 PM
Dense?Dumb? That one has to be one of the dumbest crankiest trolls yet.
CW on December 29, 2012 at 3:07 PM
I think this line is a case of the media accidentally admitting too much.
For one thing, if they wanted to really sell confiscation to the public, they’d be claiming that very few people would be affected and it wouldn’t cost the taxpayer a great deal. They’d be claiming that only a few thousand are in circulation.
Second, we have literally millions of units in circulation yet we have had in the past year what… maybe a half dozen major crimes involving semi-auto sporting rifles? These weapons have a per-unit fatality rate a dozen times better than most cars on the road.
Alberta_Patriot on December 29, 2012 at 3:07 PM
You’re just another king of art of fallacious arguments. Congrats!
Seriously some of the other trolls here tend to try to just have a good time but I get the sense you are one unhappy person. Sad.
CW on December 29, 2012 at 3:11 PM
So you don’t just reside on your knees during recreational time, you prefer to live your entire life in that position.
Figures.
tom daschle concerned on December 29, 2012 at 3:11 PM
I was part of that military industrial complex d-douche. I took an oath. To the Constitution.
You think sons with mothers will fire on home?
You’re a dumbass.
wolly4321 on December 29, 2012 at 3:13 PM
Remember you’re the left is not reality based. (See DBear). Notice how he could not come back against the fact that violent crimes are down.
CW on December 29, 2012 at 3:13 PM
you’reCW on December 29, 2012 at 3:13 PM
just like Mrs. Lanza, a paranoid, delusional, violent gun nut. Hope you at least keep yours locked up and away from your angry young sons who can’t get laid
DBear on December 29, 2012 at 3:15 PM
Angry little man. So pathetic.
CW on December 29, 2012 at 3:17 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »