doesn't it?
If the above paragraph seems dense, it admittedly is. It is also a gross simplification of the legislation, which is highly technical and riddled with numerous caveats and exemptions. The laws were written in such a way to ensnare the maximum possible number of firearms into the prohibited and restricted categories, severely curtailing their availability to the public. But since the government of the day — the Jean Chrétien-led Liberals — didn’t want to admit that was their intention, they had to hide their motives behind benign-sounding technical jargon. In doing so, they created a bureaucratic monster.
The NDP are its latest victims. Ruger, an American-based firearms manufacturer, builds the Mini-14 rifles, in several different variants. The different variants are essentially identical in terms of their mechanical operation — the “guts” of the rifle, with the highly complex moving parts and delicate components — are common across every variant. Only the finishing touches differ, and those are easy to slap on in the final phase of manufacture.
The reason for the different finishing touches is unremarkable: It’s all marketing. The “Ranch” variant of the rifle is marketed to hunters and farmers, and has few bells and whistles. It has a wooden stock — nothing fancy — and a long barrel, good for accuracy at long ranges (like those found, for example, on a ranch). The “Tactical” variant of the rifle, though mechanically identical, is marketed towards sports shooters, and has a shorter barrel, a black plastic stock and the option to attach accessories like flashlights.
But small differences can have big effects. The Tactical variant of the rifle, due to its shorter barrel, is classified as restricted under Canadian law. The Ranch variant, with two inches more barrel, is non-restricted. That’s how the NDP made their innocent mistake. But it also goes to show how needlessly complex the classification system is. The Ruger Mini-14 Tactical looks somewhat scarier and is slightly shorter (and thus, the logic goes, easier to conceal). But can anyone seriously say it’s more dangerous? Two extra inches of barrel won’t stop a madman from firing into a crowd. Two inches less doesn’t mean it can’t be used for hunting.
If you recall, several Democrats sat down with a catalog and decided that any rifle with 'X' features that made them lose bladder control was therefore a eeevilllleee Assault Weapon and the peasants should not be allowed such. Which meant manufacturers could change a few cosmetic features and the guns were legal to make and sell. And then the gun bigots bitched and whined that "They're following the letter of the law, but violating the spirit!" I think that line actually came from Schumer(long walk/short dock, etc.). Who, being a lawyer, you'd think would know better than to say such a thing; but I guess he was hoping to shame them or something instead of revealing that idiots had written a law and gotten some of the usual results.
Of course, we also have that idiot McCarthy demonstrating that she was pushing for laws on things she knows absolutely nothing about; apparently she hadn't seen the catalog, or even bothered to find out what it was she was trying to ban. 'Shoulder thing that goes up' for Deity's sake!
No comments:
Post a Comment