Over at Wired.com there is, yet another, anti gun article posted about the AK called AK-47: An Assault rifle for Everyman. Even though it doesn't come right out and announce it in neon lettering, this is pretty much a photo essay against the weapon, and gun ownership in general. Along with various pictures of the weapon being handled by children, pirates and guerrilla fighters it also includes - what I consider - a hilarious picture of Rep. Dianne Feinstein holding an AK at a Congressional hearing against large cap mags. Notice she uses a drum mag to make her point, all the while with her finger on the trigger. Watch it there Congresswoman.
What they don't show is it being used by Iraqi Police recruits training to take control of their own country back from US forces and regain their own independence; they don't show it putting dinner on the table in some African country because it is the only rifle the owner has access to or can afford to shoot; they don't show it in the hands of US Special Operations troops against the Taliban in Afghanistan. They show it as a threat, not a tool. Yes it is a tool designed to maim or kill. All weapons are. But they are tools none the less. You don't condemn the hammer for being able to crush a mans skull with a single blow, or the ax for the ability to cut it off. Yet the firearm is vilified to such an extent by the liberal media in this country as to make the mere ownership of one the cause of suspicion and persecution.
I take the rifle for what it is, a reliable and robust firearm designed by a man who really gained no substantial financial gain from it. He lived a good life by SOVIET standards, but he didn't get lush private retreats and vacation trips to island resorts like a lot of the arms manufacturers over here. Can I really hold it against Mikhail Kalishnikov that he built something to fight off Nazi's that was later used against my country? Would we feel better if the world armed itself with French, Chinese or English weapons and used them against us? Trust me, if the west came up with this design in 1947 half or more of our troops in Korea would of had these along with every paratrooper in our forces at the time. As it was, our military's mindset at the time was still on precise long range marksmanship and we ignored this design as it appeared. There is nothing wrong with long range marksmanship (I am planning on attending an Appleseed event myself this summer), it definitely needs to be taught to our services more than it is. A good rifleman at 500 yards is definitely a master of the fundamentals and can easily transition into other types of engagements. But...data collected and analyzed right after WW II showed the majority of small arms engagements were made at relatively close range, less than 200 yards. This was mostly due to our enemies not being overly stupid and standing around for long periods of time waiting to be shot. They operated much like us, fire and maneuver while using cover and concealment. The AK would of been much better suited for this type of fighting than the M1 (which itself was an outstanding rifle) was. As it turned out Chinese mass attacks over open terrain in Korea continued this mindset in the Army towards large calibers and long range fire and the lessons learned and shortcomings that the Soviets ironed out in the late 40's and 50's with the AK plagued the US's answer, the AR, in the jungles of Vietnam with sometimes catastrophic results. OK, no AK versus AR discussion here, just taking a moment to point out some pertinent history as it relates to the AK.
OK, you guess it, I'm an AK lover. I carried an AR on and off for 21 years in the military, but after owning my first AK, learning how to completely disassemble it and the functioning of it, I cannot help but be overly impressed that a design created over 60 years ago has lasted until this day with basically little, if any change to it. I have the same type of respect for it that I have for a 1911 pistol or M2 machine gun designed by John Browning a century ago.
So here's notice to you liberal media morons out there, I'm watching you.
2nd Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)