fox files

Calling out Kamala Harris for her desire to ban and confiscate what she calls ‘assault weapons’ make it seem like she is OK with banning ‘just assault weapons,’ while other firearms would still be acceptable.

The problem? This viewpoint is not based in truth.

This viewpoint stems from misconceptions about what an ‘assault weapon’ is, how these firearms are different than ‘good guns,’ and why they’re crucial for law-abiding citizens to own.

Let’s drive down into this because there’s a lot more to this issue than most people realize.

So… what is an ‘Assault Weapon’?

The military doesn’t use this term ‘assault weapon.’ You’ll never find these terms in any official military documentation or historical record.

It doesn’t exist in those places.

Gun owners don’t use this term for any gun.

Just like we don’t use the term ‘assault knife’ when a criminal attacks and kills dozens with a knife, or ‘assault vehicle’ when someone attacks people with their vehicle.

So where did the term come from?

The term ‘assault weapon’ originated in the United States during the 1980s to the1990s. It’s a political term used to describe certain types of semi-automatic firearms that resemble military weapons – but the civilian firearms are completely different. Civilians cannot own the fully automatic versions of these firearms.

The term ‘assault weapon’ was introduced only in political discourse, popularized by gun control advocates and the media to refer to semi-automatic firearms that look similar to their military counterparts.

The term gained traction with the passage of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which prohibited the manufacture and sale of certain semi-automatic firearms and magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds. The law defined ‘assault weapons’ based largely on cosmetic features such as pistol grips, folding stocks, and flash suppressors, rather than how the firearm functioned.

The term ‘assault weapon’ has been used loosely by politicians and the media to describe certain semi-automatic firearms, especially ones that look intimidating. The problem is that this definition is just all over the place.

Is it how the gun looks?

How fast it shoots?

How many rounds it holds?

Here’s the truth: most of the firearms they call ‘assault weapons’ are simply semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 – which is the most popular sporting rifle in America.

These rifles fire one bullet per trigger pull—just like your granddad’s hunting rifle.

The difference?

Politicians and the media freak out because these rifles look like military rifles.

But guess what?

The AR-15 has never been issued to any soldier in any war in the history of the planet. It’s not a weapon of war; it’s a tool for self-defense.

The term ‘assault weapon’ is a pure media invention just as was ‘the wild West’ in order to sell newspapers at the expense of dumbing down the public. As an aside, there never was a wild West.

When does a gun become an ‘Assault Weapon’?

Is it about how fast you can shoot?

Many think ‘assault weapons’ fire faster, but that’s not true. Both the AR-15 and Glocks (the most popular handgun on the planet) are semi-automatic, firing one bullet per trigger pull.

An AR-15 can be shot as fast as a Glock.

So, it can’t be about speed.

It it about how many rounds the gun holds?

Another common argument is that AR-15’s are dangerous because they have high-capacity magazines, typically holding 30 rounds.

But here’s the thing: one can get a 30-round magazine for a Glock, too. In fact, consumers can get a Glock magazine that holds 100 rounds!

So, if the number of rounds is the problem, then why single out the AR-15?

(Now… if you’re of the thinking, “yes! It’s how many rounds it holds! No one needs 30 rounds!”) Just hang tight… not so damned fast there Senator!

Is it just the way it looks?

When one is stripped it down, the big issue people seem to have with the AR-15 is that it looks like a military weapon.

But looks don’t kill—it’s the function that matters.

And functionally, the AR-15 operates just like any other semi-automatic firearm.

The idea that an AR-15 is somehow ‘worse’ just because it looks scarier is pure media hype and emotion.

Is it about how many people it can injure?

One of the most misleading arguments is that AR-15’s can injure or kill more people than other weapons. But here’s the truth: Criminals can use ANY weapon for deadly attacks.

Let’s look at some examples:

• The Nice Truck Attack (2016): A terrorist used a truck to mow down pedestrians in Nice, France, killing 86 people. No guns involved. We didn’t rename trucks into “assault trucks.”
• Kunming Train Station Attack (2014): A group of attackers armed with knives killed 31 people and injured more than 140 at a train station in China. A knife, in the hands of a criminal, can be just as deadly as any firearm. We didn’t rename these knives into “assault knives.”
• London Bridge Attack (2017): Attackers used a van to run people over and then went on a stabbing spree, killing 8 people and injuring dozens more. Again, no firearms needed to carry out mass carnage. We didn’t start saying “assault van.”

It’s not the tool, it’s the intent.

Whether it’s a gun, a knife, or even a vehicle, people with evil intentions will find ways to cause harm.

The idea that banning AR-15’s would somehow stop mass violence is simply false.

Criminals will always find ways to inflict harm—so why take away the most effective tool law-abiding citizens have to defend themselves?

---

OK, So They Get Banned… Then What?

Let’s say the politicians get their way and AR-15s are banned. What would that actually look like?

Would criminals—the very people committing most of the violent crimes—suddenly give up their AR-15’s? Or would they keep them?

Let’s be real here: Criminals don’t follow laws.

They aren’t going to march into a police station and hand over their rifles just because there’s a new ban in place.

To put it into perspective, let’s take a look at the war on drugs. Drugs have been illegal since the Controlled Substances Act was passed in 1970.

We’ve had entire government agencies, drug-sniffing dogs, undercover agents, and countless resources devoted to removing illegal drugs from the streets.

Yet, drugs are still everywhere. If someone wants drugs, they’ll find a way to get them, no matter how many laws we pass or how many task forces we deploy.

Now imagine applying that same logic to AR-15s. Would we need to train dogs to sniff out AR-15s? Create a new government agency to find and confiscate them? The idea is just as unrealistic as it sounds.

The bottom line is this: banning AR-15s won’t stop criminals from getting their hands on one. If a criminal wants an AR-15, they’ll get one—just like they do with illegal drugs.

The only people impacted by these bans are law-abiding citizens.

Stripping away my right to own an AR-15 leaves me defenseless against the criminals who will still have theirs.

---

“No One Needs 30 Round Magazines!”

Now let’s talk about why law-abiding citizens need AR-15s.

First, we’ve got to consider what’s happening at the southern border.

It’s no secret that criminals and gang members are crossing into our country at alarming rates.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection says 10 million illegal immigrants have crossed the border illegally since Biden has been in office. (Trump says the number is closer to 21 million, but either way – it’s more than a LOT.)

Among them are thousands of violent criminals, gang members, and terrorists’ intent on doing us harm.

With violent crime on the rise (ironically, particularly in cities and states with harsher gun laws) law-abiding citizens are finding themselves more vulnerable than ever.

According to the FBI, there were nearly 1.3 million violent crimes reported across the U.S. in 2022 alone, including homicides, aggravated assaults, and robberies.

We’re talking about real threats that people face in their neighborhoods, not in some far-off battlefield.

Given here are a couple of recent examples where an AR-15 would have been crucial for self-defense:

1. Israel on October 7th, 2023 – During the surprise attack on Israel, civilians were caught completely off guard by armed militants. Imagine if those citizens had been equipped with AR-15s—they could have defended their homes and families with the same firepower the attackers used. In situations like this, an AR-15 isn’t a luxury—it’s a necessity for survival. Think this can’t happen here? Just watch. It’s coming.
2. Aurora, Colorado – Just recently, residents of an apartment complex found themselves terrorized by Venezuelan gangs who seized control of entire buildings. Local law enforcement was overwhelmed, and these citizens were left to fend for themselves. Those criminals had AR15s – why shouldn’t the citizens have had them?
3. Seattle’s CHAZ/CHOP Zone (2020) – During the summer of 2020, parts of Seattle were effectively seized by protesters who set up the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” (CHAZ). For weeks, law enforcement was absent, and violence surged inside the zone. Residents and business owners were left defenseless against theft, vandalism, and violence. Should we not allow residents and business owners to have access to AR15s for self defense?
4. Minneapolis Riots (2020) – Following the death of George Floyd, Minneapolis was gripped by violent riots that destroyed entire neighborhoods. Buildings were burned to the ground, looters roamed freely, and law enforcement was stretched thin. Many business owners were left helpless as their properties were ransacked and destroyed. Should we have prevented business owners access to life-saving tools like AR15s?
5. The Ferguson Riots (2014) – After the shooting of Michael Brown, Ferguson, Missouri, experienced weeks of unrest, including looting, arson, and violent confrontations. Property owners had little to no means of protecting their businesses and homes from the destruction. With an AR-15, they could have defended themselves from the mobs.
6. Hurricane Harvey Looting (2017) – In the wake of Hurricane Harvey, widespread looting occurred in parts of Houston, Texas. Law enforcement was focused on rescuing people and dealing with the disaster, leaving many residents vulnerable to criminals taking advantage of the situation. An AR-15 would have been an invaluable tool for those who had to face looters in the aftermath of the hurricane.
7. The Sutherland Springs Church Shooting (2017) – A hero armed with an AR-15 stopped the mass shooter responsible for the Sutherland Springs church massacre. The shooter had killed 26 people, and without the intervention of Stephen Willeford and his AR-15, the tragedy could have been far worse. This real-life example shows how these rifles can be life-saving tools in the hands of responsible citizens.

---

Conclusion

The media and politicians want to scare you with buzzwords like ‘assault weapon’ but the truth is, the AR-15 is nothing more than a tool for self-defense. With rising crime rates, unchecked illegal immigration, and real threats to our safety, law-abiding citizens need the means to protect themselves and their families.

So the next time someone tells you that no one ‘needs’ an AR-15, remind them of the criminals crossing our borders, the violent crime on our streets, and the moments in history when people did need those very tools to protect their lives.

Stay safe, stay vigilant, and protect your rights. We’re all in this together.