Sig Sauer MCX
A few potential topics:
- Medal of Honor recipient cleared of hit-and-run charge — This has to be a relief to the solicitor’s office. Who would want to prosecute this one?
- Gun used by shooter was not an AR-15 — It was a Sig Sauer MCX, for those who care.
- Orlando massacre brings together Christians and gay community — We’ve read a lot in the last couple of day about how the massacre has divided us, so this is nice. Also, did you see that Chick-Fil-A in Orlando opened on Sunday — not to the public to make money, but just to feed people giving blood in the aftermath.
- Primary battle not over for two long-time GOP SC Senate leaders — Mike Fair and Larry Martin face runoffs, something I didn’t mention in the roundup earlier today.
- Bernice Scott beaten in attempt to regain seat — Another one I overlooked. Wow. This is sort of historic for Richland County. The former longtime councilman was unable to step in and take back the seat abandoned by her son-in-law Kelvin Washington.
Related Posts
Actually, pretty much the ideal weapon for shooting people in a nightclub.
Also, I usually don’t have much truck with Utah Republicans, but this speech is extraordinary:
https://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=40209267&nid=148&title=lt-gov-cox-speaks-at-vigil-for-orlando-my-heart-has-changed
To riff on the different weapon theme, check out this picture:
One of these guns was illegal in the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and one of them was perfectly legal. Can anyone tell me what the difference or differences in the two? I’ll give a prize to the person who comes up with the most correct answer.
Looks like the bottom rifle has a muzzle brake that redirects propellant gases to counter recoil and unwanted rising of the barrel during rapid fire. The top weapon was legal, the bottom one not legal.
You got one.
The bottom rifle has a flash suppressor (it can look like a muzzle break) which is simply a cosmetic feature and does nothing to affect the “lethality” of the rifle or the projectile coming from it. It simply lessens (but doesn’t entirely eliminate) the amount of seen light coming from the muzzle. However, it was considered an attribute that would make your rifle a banned rifle under the 1994 AWB.
Yeah, I kinda thought that was a flash suppressor, but I assumed Bob knew more about it that I did. He sounded way convincing…
I knew muzzle brakes (isn’t that correct, not “break?”) were illegal, so I made a bad, quick assumption. Looking again, it is small for a muzzle brake. Dang, I wanted that DING DING DING and prize!
Flash suppressor or, maybe, folding stock (can’t tell)
Close! You spotted two of the three! The flash suppressor that Bob got, AND you found the eeeeviiil folding stock on the bottom rifle. It folds on a hinge for easy storage and again doesn’t make the rifle any more or less dangerous. Again, it’s a cosmetic feature.
There’s one more. Can you find it? It’s my favorite one because it’s so silly.
It’s a “cosmetic feature” that makes it a lot easier to conceal — if you’re trying to sneak it into a crowded nightclub, for instance.
Fair point. (See, look how reasonable I can be.)
Something about the front sling mount.
Anything capable of accepting a large clip ought to be an NFA weapon; both of these. The problem last time was Congress tried to split the baby. The simple solution is to do like they did with car radios back in the 80s and 90s. People figured out the DIN units were no Bueno and all the manufacturers went with integrated one off radio designs. And poof, car radio thefts ended.
Eliminate magazines and you eliminate all the problems with these weapons. Other weapons will always be around, but we can stop this train with one simple fix.
That’s not a front sling mount, but you did find the third feature that was a banned characteristic.
It’s a bayonet lug…for mounting a bayonet. Good thing they outlawed *that*, right?
Wouldn’t want folks to have a knife on the front of their AR, now would we? Like I said, silly.
Bryan, it’s all well and good to call the law that came out of the sausage-making process silly.
But think for a moment how hard it is to get any sort of bill like that passed. Compromises and deletions and exceptions and meaningless features being banned are what I’d expect out of such a bill that survives Congress. You know, like “I won’t vote for banning hollow-point ammunition, but I’ll go along with forbidding bayonet mounts.”
The fact that ANYTHING passed is a testament to how much more functional Congress still was 20 years ago. Now, the party caucuses aren’t about getting things done, but about blocking things. Or, better yet, proposing things that your base wants and that you know the opposition will block so you can run against them for voting against it. The campaign money flows in from outraged donors in your base, and nothing gets done.
There just isn’t a reason for civilians to have access to weapons that fire 30-round magazines quickly. That’s what we should ban.
But I’m not holding my breath that something so simple and obvious will pass…
Congress certainly did more back then, I’ll give you that. Congress can’t even pass a budget now.
What you describe is precisely what happened with the 1994 assault gun “ban.” The gun lobby worked to create loopholes during the drafting of the legislation that were subsequently used by gun manufacturers to circumvent the intent of the law. The result was to render the law largely powerless — which in turn allowed the gun lobby to poke fun at the ineffectiveness of gun control.
The thing that separated the Brown Bess of the armies from the Brown Bess of the colonists was the 2 ft bayonet. At the time that was a terrifying difference.
This is an echo of that.
“mysterydate” = Mprince.
Surprise!