Gun that killed Charlie Kirk… [More]
Words have meaning. Does “conservative” Fox News really not know any better?
…is WWI-era rifle that may be untraceable…
Before serial numbers were a thing…? So “ghost guns” had always been (and still are!) “in common use at the time” until treasonous prohibitionists started defecating all over “shall not be infringed”…?
“Before serial numbers were a thing” is nothing more than a red herring if this particular Mauser has a serial number, and all of the Mausers I have examined did.
For that matter, several of the guns I own that are even older than the first 98k have serial numbers. As was explored in a recent book on “ghost guns”, there are more factors that could make a gun “untraceable” than lack of a serial number. In fact, that author, when trying to nail down a reasonable definition of “ghost gun”, stated that some 80% of the world’s stock of firearms would be untraceable for one reason or another.
There’s a lot of “information” that has been released by various sources in relation to this assassination that don’t line up. One would be the pictures of case heads supposedly of cartridges recovered at the scene or found in the rifle’s magazine. There were supposedly “pro-trans” messages engraved on those cartridges, but the only “engravings” we’ve been shown were the headstamps of cartridges made in a Canadian government arsenal with the British “broad arrow” marking. That kind of headstamp would be rather odd on a .30-06 case. Further, the edge of the case rim looks more rounded than would be seen on a .30-06. It looks more like the rim of a .303 British to me. So why were we shown the headstamps instead of these supposed “pro-trans” engravings?
Not a red herring if this report is correct:
It predates serial number mandates … in America.
But it’s a Mauser, which means it was likely manufactured in Germany, so the American serial number mandate is completely irrelevant. I don’t know if Germany had a serial number requirement at the time, but the company making them may have serialized them for quality control purposes if nothing else. And there’s nothing saying the rifle didn’t have one added later.
I haven’t seen anywhere specifically saying that this gun has no serial number, just that it predates the (American) mandate. I’d bet a dollar to a donut hole that it has one, manufacture date notwithstanding.
Saying this gun predates the American serial number mandate and therefore it’s “untraceable” is a scare tactic to rile up the low-information prohibitionists that there could be millions of unserialized “ghost guns” floating around. Whether any of it is true or not (I’d bet not) doesn’t matter to The Narrative[TM].
We’ll know how Kirk was assassinated the day we find out how JFK was assassinated. Interesting how in both cases, the rifle “used” was ancient. In Kirk’s case we’re told it’s an ancient Mauser. In JFK’s case it was a 25 or 30 year old Italian surplus war rifle.
I don’t see any logical reason *why it should matter* if the rifle is “untraceable.” What would be the point? They *have* the rifle suspected of being used in the assassination, and they *have* a suspect in custody. What else is important or useful w.r.t. the rifle’s provenance or chain of ownership?
It seems like an utterly irrelevant point, or a red herring. Kind of like when the leftist media repeated the irrelevant talking point that Kyle Rittenhouse took an AR15 “across state lines.” Anybody knowledgeable about the gun laws would ask, “So what?”
I agree. My reply was in response to the contention that it had a serial number.
Bingo. They’ve got the gun, and lots of textual evidence claiming it was grandpa’s. It should be pretty cut and dry to find out whether or not this is grandpa’s rifle, face to face.