Good Question from Raven

Raven asks if "interchangeable parts" with regard to MA's new assault weapons ban applies to things like detachable magazines and scopes. Does that mean anything with a Picatinny rail is now an assault weapon?

Watch out for that "assault" break-action shotgun.


raven said...

Just got back from a week on the bike with minimal news access. Amazing what can happen in a week. there is the expected, the horrifying, and the truly worrisome- 50 plus nukes stored in the middle of a country undergoing an Islamist takeover has the potential of a real mess. They say troops are guarding them. How many, how well armed, how loyal, and to who? Talk about a blackmail wild card- Mr. Erdogan is probably up late wondering if Putin was going to whack him with a preemptive strike.
Priority wise, containing those nukes should be job #1 for the USA.

Grim said...

Maybe it is, but if so we're not talking about it.

E Hines said...

Regarding the OP, are bullets interchangeable parts? At least until they're actually used?

How about the brass?

The powder horn with my Hawken?

Eric Hines

Grim said...

Cartridges plausibly are. The category of "assault weapons" is supposed to embrace semi-automatic rifles that are otherwise similar to fully-automatic military assault rifles. One of the characteristics of military assault rifles is that they use low-powered cartridges with light recoil.

So, it might make sense from her perspective to consider any rifle that uses a 5.56mm NATO or 7.62 Soviet cartridge to be an "assault weapon" on the grounds of 'interchangeable parts,' even if it's a break-action or lever-action or whatever. Having a cartridge like that is a kind of essential characteristic of a real assault rifle, after all.

Ymar Sakar said...

Maybe it is, but if so we're not talking about it.

Hussein's Regime can easily recover 50 nukes, while keeping 50 nukes there. All they have to do is to run a switch around operation, like they did the two Stryker brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan.

james said...

"During the interview Mr. Kristensen noted the B-61 warheads would take approximately three weeks to transfer from the underground bunkers in the event of an emergency, even with a full military contingency facilitating the move."

???? Is this real or disinformation? Maybe I'm missing something, but why would we assume we'd get 3 weeks notice before a nuclear war?

I'd curious: if orders from 1600 Pennsylvania Av said leave some there while we evacuate, would that happen or would somebody in the chain of command accidentally miscount our share and take them all?

Grim said...

Hopefully, that's disinformation.

raven said...

Those nukes are THE PRIZE. THE PRIZE OF PRIZES. I would expect every effort possible to obtain them for the Jihad.

We hopefully have an alternate plan if the base is overrun- as in an ICBM strike on it to prevent the lose of those warheads. Yes, I am quite serious. IMO, there is no possible worse outcome than those nukes getting distributed among the savages.
Problem is, we have a waffler in charge, who will delay and obfuscate till it is too late. Maybe deliberately.

Grim said...

Well, if they still work. We haven't tested a nuclear weapon since the Clinton administration. We have no idea if any of them are still functional -- and given that they decay naturally, there's a good reason to think they aren't.

Still, for what it's worth, power and water are back on this morning. The Turks seem to be standing down. I don't know if that means they got what they want, or if they just gave up.

raven said...

"Well, if they still work"

Now there would be the intelligence coup of all time- finding out for sure an adversary's entire strategic weapons systems is kaput.
what do you suppose the Russians or Chinese would do for that knowledge?