Dear New York,
I'm writing to express my heartfelt appreciation of the knee-jerk legislation you passed back in January of 2013.
You see, I've often bitched about the impossibility of defining the term "assault weapon." Thankfully, you seem to have narrowed it down, once again, to firearms that either look scary, or have certain features that absolutely in no way affect the mechanical aspect of a firearm. Congrats, probably it'll work this time.
Since, obviously, no one in your government has ever seen a firearm before, I'll take the time to explain.
Folding and telescoping stocks are designed to allow the weapon to be fired from a car. Or one-handed, from the hip probably. This is especially true of those semi-auto shotguns. I've found that 12 gauge wounds are far more lethal when fired from a shotgun with a folding stock. The same is true of weapons with thumbhole stocks. I believe the act of placing one's thumb through a hole in the stock of a weapon creates less wind-drag, which increases the velocity of a round exponentially, or something like that.
|Don't push me bro. I'll extend my stock and assault the shit right out of you.|
And of course, the danger of having a bayonet lug on a weapon. I mean shit, if I'm going to be shot, I certainly don't want to know that the shooter had the capability of attaching a knife to the gun. Plus, I'm guessing that the presence of a bayonet lug allows the firearm to be fired more quickly, seeing as how it's just a piece metal that allows the mounting of a bayonet.
As for the flash suppressors, thank goodness those won't be a problem anymore. I can't even tell you the horror of being shot with a rifle and not having the burning gases displaced. At least I'll have died knowing that the shooter was seeing spots for a few minutes. Probably.
|You see, much safer now. This rifle is practically incapable of hurting anyone.|
I could go on and discuss the grenade launchers and pistol grips, but I'm running out of time and I certainly wanted to give you an "atta boy" over your decision to require these assault weapons be registered. I'm confident you have some way of enforcing this registration thing, other than to say it's a misdemeanor not to, right?
Probably you have some gun-sniffing ferrets or something that are going to alert you to the fact that someone owns a firearm that can be defined as an assault weapon. Surely, you have the manpower and funding to actually go break into American civilian homes to verify that there are, in fact, no assault weapons present. I'm guessing you'll somehow probably find the balls also.
That must be the plan, right? Since the amount of manpower and funding it would take to trace each and every firearm capable of being defined as an assault weapon that was imported and sold God knows how many times in the history of forever is simply unfeasible. To save argument or any actual thought, we'll just ignore the fact that quality record keeping is fairly new.
Perhaps next time you pass some sort of gun reform, you could consider banning slings as well, especially the military style ones. And maybe require AR-15 style rifles to be painted in bright, happy colors as they'd be less lethal if they weren't so scary looking. Just a thought.
In closing, I'd like to thank you, once again, for responding to an awful tragedy with this totally useless, panicked legislation. I'd also like to thank you for not knowing a rifle from a fucking cupcake, and banning totally inconsequential features. You should be proud, or, um, something like proud. Embarrassed by your total and utter ignorance, maybe?
Someone Who Knows What Makes Guns Go Pew-Pew