Posted on 10/26/2014 8:27:02 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
When recent Islamic convert Michael Zehif-Bibeau carried out the October 22 terror attack in Ottawa he used a lever action 30-30 rifle, not an "assault weapon."
To be specific, he used a Winchester Model 94 30-30--one of the oldest and most recognizable guns in of all North America, if not the world.
The Model 94 holds 7 rounds--8 if you have one chambered--and is not a semi-automatic firearm (the lever on the gun has to be manually cocked between each shot).
CBCNews Canada reports that Zehif-Bibeau fired three shots at the War Memorial before he even entered Parliament. Of those three, two were fired at Cpl. Nathan Cirillo and one at the other soldier who was also serving "in the honor guard." This left him with 5 shots maximum.
CBCNews believes this relatively small amount of ammo explains why he walked past so many individuals between the War Memorial and Parliament, without trying to take anyone else's life. He wanted to spend those remaining bullets on MPs.
It should be noted that Zehif-Bibeau was "under a criminal prohibition from possessing firearms." However, that did not stop him....
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
My Liberal friends always tell me that they are only afraid of assault rifles -- because those are the dangerous ones.
Yep, those bolt-action .308s won't hurt anyone. Not even at 600 yards.
The ban on the Daisy Red Rider BB gun is coming in 3..2..1..
If I'm ever robbed by a man with a rifle, the first thing I'll check is whether the rifle has a bayonet lug. If not, I'll relax a little. Then I'll check for a grenade launcher. If the rifle doesn't have either feature, I won't worry at all. Those are the two most dangerous parts of a rifle - I know, Pelosi and Feinstein told me so, and they are experts on firearms.
Whew! That’s a relief. Just think if he had used one of those uber-powerful .223 shootin’ assault, shoulder goes up, extended clip, hand guard, pistol grip, extendable stock, fully semi auto type guns instead.
Idiots is idiots.
It will be an “assault weapon” now!
It illustrates the absurdity of gun control laws - a criminal or terrorist will always have easy access to one.
All they do is strip law-abiding people of their sole means of self-defense.
Common sense however, is not quality found on the hoplophobe Left that in that in the face of all the evidence, continues to insist we don’t have enough gun laws on the books.
Go figure.
A bit of history
The old Krnka (Russian Rifle) was soundly outperformed by the more modern single shot Turkish Peabody-Martini rifles and it became clear that the new Berdan rifle had also been rendered obsolete even as it was being introduced into service, outclassed by the **Turkish Winchester repeaters**. Reports of the heavy losses suffered by the Russian army at the hands of the Turks at Plevna forced armies across Europe to begin the process of either reequipping with repeating rifles or finding a way to convert their existing single shot rifles into magazine fed weapons.
It was 1877 and things were changing, Winchester made a difference, even for the Ottoman EMpirre.
My point? At a point time the Winchester was a military assault rifle.....just not recently.
Connors rifle was similar, but not exactly a Model 94. The Rifleman carried a Model 1892, big loop on the lever.
I’ll bet Custer’s men would’ve loved to have gotten their hands on some.
That’s like saying “McQueen wasn’t driving a Cougar, that was a Mustang.”
Could someone please tell me how a weapon of any sort is NOT an ASSAULT WEAPON?
"cause you'll shoot your eye out!"
Assault Muslim
Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull's men did have a few Winchesters. The single shot Trapdoor 45-70 was no match for the numbers of men they were facing.
505 Russians were glad Simo Häyhä only had a bolt action Mosin-Nagant.
One of my favorite things back in NY was to dress up in brown, strap antlers to my head and jog back and forth across ridges in the Southern Tier during hunting season.
It’s a little known fact that a 30.06 with a scope is utter worthless at a few hundred yards. They’re bolt action. Totally harmless. Now I’d have never done that if it was an AR15 because they are evil. and can take out airliners at 30,000 feet.
It depends on the intended use.
The Military issue of the M-16, for example, is an assault weapon since it's main intended use is to kill the enemy.
On the other hand, the civilian version, the AR-15, a semi-automatic weapon I use for target practice and personal protection is a rifle.
It doesn't assault anyone unless I make it.
Words have power. Thats why libs change their meanings so often to benefit their agenda of the moment. All you need to know on the subject was written by Orwell. The trouble is, the libs use the info as a how-to guide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.