This whole “assault weapon” – “weapon of war” – “military rifle” riff is silly, as most of our readers know. There’s a (currently dwindling) segment of the population who buys the Biden fairy tale, but I’m not sure it’s a majority anymore.

Those on the inside of the gun culture hear “military weapon” and may think K98 Mauser, 1903A3 Springfield, the 1873 Model P or the “US Pistol, Cal. 45, Model 1911A1.”

A legit 'military' firearm, the Colt 1911 pattern (this a National Match, carried on uniformed police duty in the US in the 1970s) above and a more current rendition of the Army 1873 Model P, below -- these are guns of the type used by the military in the past.

That’s because they were guns built for the purpose of arming military forces – just like the 1851 Navy revolver. But these aren’t the guns under consideration for federal bans … yet.

I remember gun magazines of the 1960s (that’s no typo) in which the writers were concerned about federal bans on handguns, bolt action rifles – but not stack barrel or side-by-side shotguns. In those innocent times, a population beaten by the Great Depression, Prohibition, massive violent crime and yet another global war was staring the new Cold War in the face. War weary, tiring of crises, they turned to escapist entertainment while their children rebelled against “business as usual.” They recoiled from protests about civil rights and the war in Vietnam. They wanted peace and were willing to give up some freedom.

The gun writers were right; prohibitionists weren’t going to be satisfied with one new gun law or a hundred of them. They play the long game and want them all banned. It’s why you’ll periodically see a prohibitionist try to shame an opponent by saying “No one’s taking all of your guns.”

Yeah. The check’s in the mail, right?

We all know why the AR is “the people’s rifle.” Light recoil, modularity to fit shooters from the smallest to the largest, parts and ammo availability and institutional knowledge from fifty years of using the platform all contribute to its justified popularity.

Correspondent Stephen Wenger notes that there’s another potential reason an increasing number of people are buying AR15 rifles and magazines right now: it could be that some number of new AR15 owners are buying in specifically because government functionaries and their accomplices in the media want to ban them.

He goes on to note that the “military looks … make the rifles so dangerous” riff from the left is of small moment. It’s not cosmetics they want to ban – it’s all centerfire autoloading rifles. Like me, he doubts they’d stop there, eventually going after semiauto rimfires and more.

It’s happened in the UK, Australia and other countries.

In a related story, “if we can’t kill the rifles and magazines, let’s bottleneck the ammo supply.” NSSF’s Larry Keane noted on Twitter that “The U.S. Military is actively considering shutting down the sale (of) M855/SS109 ammo from Lake City to the commercial market. @NSSF @NRAILA #GreenTipAmmo @POTUS @JoeBiden”

Any time you think you have them stopped, they find another way through … it’s about like trying to keep water out of a basement.

The phony reason for all the gun ban talk – and red flags and background checks and the rest of it – was the most recent school shooting. Like all of them, it was a criminal outrage, but it seems like there has to be more to the story.

What was ever uncovered about the Las Vegas lunatic who shot out of a hotel window at a crowded venue … and where are investigative reporters, if government is declining to examine it?

Still, some locales are working to make schools safe from these threats (unlike the federal government).

Ohio’s governor signed a bill allowing teachers, principals and other school staff to carry guns on school premises after 24 hours of training. Previously, 700 hours were required …

The news story went on to note that the training bill was signed the same day as the “lawful carry without permit” bill was signed. Meanwhile, it’s alleged that the New York Times ran a story saying “… an emboldened gun industry and its allies target buyers with rhetoric of fear, machismo and defiance.”

Culturally tone deaf, the “fear” aspect is rather silly. Without paying to read the story, something I will not do, it appears the self-protection aspect to firearms industry advertising is troubling for the paragon of journalism.

I suppose they’ve not seen what big media has been reporting about violent crime generally – it seems outlets like theirs are driving the ‘fear’ motivation - and they’re pretending not to know about mob violence in particular.

Around and around we go – where we end up, no one knows.

-- Rich Grassi