Rifle Madness 2014obama

Yeah, yeah: I know: AR-15s look like M16s. They look military. And military is scary. Only . . . what about the cops who look like full battle dress military soldiers? What about their [often fully-automatic] assault rifles? Don’t those rifles scare gun control advocates more? Nope. The idea of a civilian having the power to be an effective militiaman – a soldier, essentially – is far more frightening to the average anti than the largely unaccountable standing army patrolling the city streets under the name “police.” The fact that criminals don’t use ARs (except in rare cases) has nothing to do with it. It’s all about social control. But haven’t gun owners won that battle? The assault weapons ban came, the assault weapons ban left. There are now millions of ARs out there, somewhere. Why can’t the antis just leave ARs alone? Or did I already answer that question?

105 Responses to Question of the Day: Why Can’t They Just Leave AR-15s Alone?

  1. Because the genocide of American’s can’t occur until the guns are confiscated,,,because the minions of tyrants are essentially cowardly thugs who don’t want to die furthering some one else’s murderous plan?

  2. Because ARs scare them more than anything else. If they got them “off the streets,” they would find something else to fear.

  3. Where to start? One has a handle, the next has a flat-top…why the need to masquerade? Free-floating barrel, that CAN’T be good. Some have “quad rails, even “double heat shields”. As if the bullets don’t travel fast enough, supersonic even, the evil gun has a “forward assist” to make them even faster? The ones without the assist are called “slick sides”, I bet you think that’s slick, huh? A pistol grip on a rifle? Two weapons in one, huh? A weapon of monolithic proportions, no doubt. We could go on, we haven’t even covered the bayonet lug or the grenade launcher cut in the barrel, I bet they even have shoulder thingies that go up, don’t they!?!?

    • To Paul G: Sir, I have read your post and hope to help you with this one.
      1) Forward assist= A button placed on the side of the gun to help ensure the bolt is closed and the lugs locked.
      2) Free Floating Barrel= A barrel attached only to the upper receiver. It is done to improve accuracy.
      3) Double Heat Shield= Device in place to protect the hands of the shooter from a hot barrel.
      4) Flat Top= Making the gun to allow for it to use a scope.
      5) Rails= Ridges placed along the fore grip so that attachments ( i.e. flashlights, lasers, grips, and bipods) may be implemented. Note that none of these actually makes the AR any more deadly.
      6) It is a federal felony to have a grenade launcher on your AR without proper licenses.
      7) Flash Suppressor= A device on the end of an AR designed to protect the shooter’s eyes in low light situations.

      • Mike,

        I think you drove the sarcasm level below zero.

        It’s clear that all those features are just to make an AR even more deadly – I’m surprised mine haven’t risen up on their own and just flat out killed me yet because they’ve all got at least a few of those features.

        I’m surprise there any children left at the rate these things are multiplying…

      • Mike, well written, informative, though the left handed sheeple are still terrified….
        I love ours, didn’t think I would but I do, and its no more deadly than a pistol except at a distance.

      • Oh, come on, with #7, the suppressor is also to avoid giving away your position in low light situations. Has everybody fired one or 2 rounds of your favorite feed (any caliber) in the dead dark, just to see the flash? I used to get practice ammo and reloads for my AR as well as surplus, even past a chrono or in group comparison (100 yards or less) they were hard to distinguish. But not when we turned the lights out. And I suspect not at longer distance, since after pulling some bullets we discovered the surplus was BT, the others FB.

      • Wowee, Mike… have you had your sarcdar checked lately? Who knows, your gaydar might needs a similar adjustment.

  4. ” Only . . . what about the cops who look like full battle dress military soldiers?”

    “Nope. The idea of a civilian having the power to be an effective militiaman – a soldier, essentially – is far more frightening to the average anti than the largely unaccountable standing army patrolling the city streets under the name “police.””

    Because every cop out on the street contacting people on routine calls for service is all decked out in plate carriers covered in MOLLE, has a MICH helmet and eyepro on, and is hefting an AR mounted with EOTechs and RIS rails, right?

    But yes, the Anti’s just can’t leave AR’s alone. It’s the boogeyman they want and need, in much the same way some jihadi with a pressure cooker bomb in his backpack is to the DHS.

    • Apparently it’s not the jihadis that scare DHS as much as the “hate groups” and “extremists”, like, say, the Catholic Church or military veterans.

    • To be fair to the ‘armed cops’ folks, when I lived in NYC I saw cops in full tactical gear at least once a week. Usually multiple times a week. I don’t know which was worse: seeing cops standing around with guard dogs and Assault Rifles (I am assuming of course that it had burst capability) or seeing Soldiers in camo with handguns standing guard at Grand Central. Neither situation should be ‘business as usual’.

      To be fair to the antis, they tend to hate cops. Not the spokespeople but their footsoldiers hate cops and actually do want them disarmed too.

  5. While many at the top of the gun control system are tyrants in training/desiring to become a tyrant, I simply do not believe the majority of anti-gunners you find on the street day in and day out are tyrants or supporting tyranny.

    I believe that the majority of anti-gunners fall into two categories:

    1. Those who lack correct, factual information. They believe what they’ve been told as a preconception because they don’t know any other point of view, and they can be corrected when exposed in a proper, civil manner.

    2. Those who are mentally ill. The mental illness they suffer from is that government is good for you, that it will protect you from any threat, and that rugged self-reliance is an outdated way to live in modern society. They see the risks of self-reliance and none of the benefits, and fail to recognize the issues with their dependence upon the government for providing security to their everyday lives. They may or may not be cured following a Katrina-like disaster (if they survive it), depending on the degree of mental illness. As guns are the ultimate expression of self-reliance and being responsible for oneself, these mentally ill people are abhorred by the thought that someone could own or use firearms for their own personal protection.

    • Agreed. I think it’s much simpler than we give them credit for. It’s merely a matter of them hating all guns, but seeing AR’s and other military style rifles as low hanging fruit….a stepping stone, nothing more. As gun grabbers have done in other countries, they go for whatever they think they can get banned. Once successful, they’ll go for whatever fruit is next lowest on the tree of Liberty, and continue working their way up.

    • I’d add “(3) Both.”

      The example that comes to mind is the lady that had the total freak-out melt down when she and her daughter found the rifle – in a case – in the rental car. There are other similar stories.

      • That’s what I was thinking.

        They are not bad people, and they have good intentions, but they still serve tyranny and make it possible. They are still to be blamed. Tyranny couldn’t exist with out people like this.

        • Yeah, it could not, without their fevered, fervent support. I wouldn’t piss on most of ’em if their heart was on fire.

      • Agree with the ‘useful idiots’ phrase from Lenin. The anti’s really don’t know what they are paving the path for. They don’t believe politics can go haywire, which is quite odd, really, since they think they know more about various revolutions than other people. NYC Mayor de Blasio is a perfect example. He believes Americans don’t need guns as a last protection against tyranny, yet he supported the Sandinistas, the Vinceramos Brigade, and so forth. I suppose the idea is that once he’s in power, the left, no defense should be possible. When the center or right is in power? Well that’s different, eh?

        The other key reality is that by rate per 100K, murders are largely with handguns and in minority neighborhoods. This applies to shootings of “the children” as well. But left wingers just can’t stand to focus on that fact, because it runs against their narrative. They are afraid to even say the words. They won’t confront the handguns fact or the minority rates of incidence facts, so they come after suburban and rural guns, the less deserving folk in the statist narrative. It’s about culture, not race, but the left can say those words, because everything must always be about race. Such is life.

  6. The AR-15 is the boogie man to anti-‘s. It’s what they use to scare their children. “Stay in line kids, or someone with an AR-15 is going to come after you”. Like the boogie man, the AR-15 poses no real danger (statistically speaking, of course). The danger exists in their heads. I think FDR once had something to say about that.

    • That’s exactly what I was thinking. There has to be a “boogeyman” whenever or wherever one group of people is trying to gain absolute control over everyone else’s rights and liberty. So, if there were no AR-15’s, it would be some other firearm…if it were 200 years ago it would be those “dangerous, scary caplock rifles that no reasonable person needs in private possession when a trusty flintlock musket will do just fine”…it really doesn’t matter what firearm the anti’s use because the point is never that particular thing, but how terrible and frightening you can make it sound to the low/no information public while concealing from them your real agenda, which is destroying their rights as free people. You never go directly for the rights you want to take away, because even the dim-witted will figure that one out. You go, instead, in a roundabout way and remove the means to exercise the right bit-by-bit. By the time the dimwits figure it out…it’s too late.

    • And if Adam Lanza didn’t exist (at the time), the Anti’s would have been forced to invent him. But why not the same antagonism towards any form of developmental retardation e.g. personality disorder, Asperger’s Syndrome, Alzheimer’s Disease, Democrat voting intentions, etc. ??

      They are targeting the symptom, not the cause. Violent behavior always has some underlying cause. Blaming the weapon in one case is not an effective strategy in reducing the danger.

  7. Sorry, the assault weapons ban didn’t go away. There are several states where it remains, or was even extended beyond that at the federal level. Don’t discount the encroachments at the state level, don’t lose sight of the fact that the anti’s see those states as evidence/motivation/inspiration to enact the bans in other states and again on the federal level.

  8. You are trying to assign logic to minds which are incapable of it. My cat eats string. It then vomits that string up. Does it stop eating string? No, I’m pretty sure that my cat believes it just got a bad batch of string. Liberals are the same.

  9. I am glad they make fools of themselves by going after the AR. I think many more uninformed people would side with the anti-gunners if they did not go after banning and registering guns. Most know it goes to far. If the AWB was never on the table last year, they may have actually passed UBCs. But as long as they go all in with proposals, they show they are tyrants and not looking for “reasonable” laws. They can only pass “emergency” legislation in the middle of the night and look extreme.

    • it’s sort of funny, isn’t it? anti-gun groups and politicos across the nation believed that 2013 was their golden ticket to pass every little measure they’ve had their hearts set on for years, so they literally went for all of it, no holds-barred. they trotted out the full agenda, from UBCs to reinstating the AWB, all the way up to registration and confiscation in various forms.

      what a mistake on their part to show their full hand and playbook all at once. the ferocity of their attack I think frankly shocked and worried many Americans who were otherwise on the fence regarding gun rights – especially as the IRS and NSA scandals simultaneously began to leak out.

      not only did they fail completely at a national level, but they awoke a sleeping giant, and caused many casual gun owners to become politicized.

      prior to the announcement of the Lautenberg amendment in late 2012 (notice how that very quickly disappeared with elections looming), I was pretty apolitical on guns. I doubted anyone would try for a repeat of the 94 AWB.

      there were a lot of people like me who, after the post-Newtown push, realized that the gun-grabbing wishes and conspiracy theories were solidly rooted in truth. I became active to defend my 2A rights, and haven’t stopped.

      also being a privacy rights advocate, the Obama admin has failed bigtime, far worse than the neocons.

    • “Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.” – Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988

    • When dealing with the public at large, versus the government and politicians, this is the correct analysis. Fear is the motivation. A citizen looks at a cop, and thinks, “Oh, it’s a cop. A cop is a government functionary, under the control of his superior officers.” Being controlled, being part of a group that is, in theory, there to “protect and serve,” the fear of their weapons is lessened–cops are supposed to have guns.

      Take the same gun, put it in the hands of a guy walking down the street, and the immediate image that jumps to mind is a person not controlled by the government, not subject to supervision–and therefore someone to be feared. that he is bearing a “military” firearm that hey are convinced has no useful purpose other than killing people, and the fear is amplified. Take the natural fear of strangers, mix in guns, and you end up with panic.

      There is only one cure: take them to the range and teach them about guns, overcome their fears and misgivings. Make them understand that just because a person is carrying a gun does not make them a bad guy bent on harm.

      • BUT! Turns out some have a deeply instilled belief that you must be inviting them to a gang rape, or perhaps to be the TARGET at the range. And of course, “a SHOOTING range? Not even possible, that would be insanely dangerous, I would never go near one!” The idea sounds easy, be prepared to pursue. I think I may have to take my new GoPro camera to the range, to show potential converts there is nothing to fear, there.

        Except one, I have never seen a range which was not welcoming and friendly. That one was hard to find, owned and run by a fruitcake, you don’t want to go there. Unless you want to shoot at gongs 400 yards away. OOoops. Then there is nowhere else within 100 miles.

  10. The anti-‘s think the AR15 is a spade from the devil’s toolshed.

    Retired Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin thinks the AR15 is the sword of God wielded by the return of warrior Jesus:

    “The Lord is a warrior and in Revelation 19 is says when he comes back, he’s coming back as what? A warrior. A mighty warrior leading a mighty army, riding a white horse with a blood-stained white robe … I believe that blood on that robe is the blood of his enemies ’cause he’s coming back as a warrior carrying a sword.

    And I believe now – I’ve checked this out – I believe that sword he’ll be carrying when he comes back is an AR-15.

    Now I want you to think about this: where did the Second Amendment come from? … From the Founding Fathers, it’s in the Constitution. Well, yeah, I know that. But where did the whole concept come from? It came from Jesus when he said to his disciples ‘now, if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.’

    I know, everybody says that was a metaphor. IT WAS NOT A METAPHOR! He was saying in building my kingdom, you’re going to have to fight at times. You won’t build my kingdom with a sword, but you’re going to have to defend yourself. And that was the beginning of the Second Amendment, that’s where the whole thing came from. I can’t prove that historically and David [Barton] will counsel me when this is over, but I know that’s where it came from.

    And the sword today is an AR-15, so if you don’t have one, go get one. You’re supposed to have one. It’s biblical.”

    I’m not religious, but I’m pretty sure Jesus was more of an AK guy.

    -D

    • To play devils advocate:

      Jesus said to buy a sword, not to use a sword. In fact, when Peter cut off that guards ear in Gethsemane, Peter was rebuked and Jesus healed his ear.

      I think Jesus wanted them to have swords only as a deterrent. He told His followers to always turn the other cheek. Jesus was a proponent of open carry, but not the use of force.

      (I do not plan to defend this position, I’m just playing the game.)

      • That statement is often misunderstood by gun people to justify arming up. That’s taking the comment out of context, but this is not the forum for theological debate, I suspect.

        • Sure this is the place; this site talks about the ethics, morals ect. ect,

          I disagree; the O.T is full of examples of men with swords fighting on the battle field to advance G-ds will; no reason to not believe that that won’t happen again with men and women armed with modern battle weapons.

          The example also continues with Christ and the apostles; at least two of the apostles carried swords during Christ ministry, they didn’t carry those swords for cutting bread or chopping firewood; swords are used for one purpose. If Christ had meant for the apostles to be pacifists; he wouldn’t have allowed the apostles to carry swords at all; let alone recommend that once he was gone; that all the apostles and in extension; all people, have the ability to defend themselves and their fellow humans from predators with weapons suitable for the battle field.

        • I don’t debate that Christ didn’t condone pacifism as a global concept. What I take exception to is pulling out Luke 22:36 and letting it stand on its own. Christ is not saying to tool up generally, but that prophecy is about to be fulfilled (his death), and when that happens, the trappings of discipleship would change. They were instructed earlier to take no money or luggage with them when they preached. Now, Jesus instructs them to get money, luggage and a sword for the mission ahead. It does negate the idea that Jesus would not have condoned going armed, but this passage is more about the prophecy being fulfilled.

        • We both agree then that Christ was a peaceful man but not a pacifist. I also agree Christ was speaking of prophecy, but I believe was also giving practical advice for after his resurrection.

          But the key is not just what he said at the last supper; it could be debated was he speaking metaphorically or practically about carrying a sword; it was the fact that for the three years of his ministry; Apostles WERE carrying swords. Actions speak louder than words. Christ; by his actions of allowing the apostles to KABA; was saying that carrying of weapons suitable for the battle field was and is with in the teachings of G-d.

    • I am religious (Christian Protestant), and that is dispensationalist claptrap. When Jesus returns, he won’t need a bunch of armchair commandos with MSRs to usher in his Kingdom. Who is this guy?

      • I had to look up dispensationalist and I’m still not sure I understand it.

        Is the general idea that given the historical observation that people’s understanding/description of theology has changed over time, a dispensationalist is a person who believes that at each given time the understanding/description was accurate and it was the way God actually works that has changed over time?

    • LOL. that was a good one’ and I’m a baptized Christian. Let’s debate that if Christ was alive today; would he recommend a particular rifle, pistol and shotgun over another?

      Naw; I believe just as all people are a child of G-d, there is no prejudice or racism towards classes of guns in the eyes of G-d. POTG have made the leap from being enslaved to being free men and women; once that has happened, how you choose to express that is ultimately of minor importance,

    • The commentaries of the early church fathers are thus:
      – That it was a hint to His disciples of persecutions and dangers to come.
      – That they would be seen to be able to avenge themselves, but, turning the other cheek, would not.
      – To indicate that he was being betrayed.

      From Ss. Kyril, Ambrose, Theophylact, and John Chrysostom.

      I do not believe Christ ever advocated resistance to persecution.

  11. I think they believe the AR to be the low-hanging fruit. They’re trying to build of the NFA; Banning a Class of weapon – worked for “Machine Guns”. Now if we can just get “Assault weapons” – those that look like machine guns but aren’t, banned it’s one more incremental step.

    In order for the eventual goal of civilian disarmament to work – they have to use that incremental approach – ban one class of gun – when/if that ban holds up it can then be used as precedent to ban another. That’s their problem, there are no blanket “bans” that hold up under constitutional scrutiny.

  12. This question answers itself me thinks.

    It has been said that the AR15 is “the musket” of the current day -the utilitarian, all-purpose personal long gun that can be used for hunting, recreation and, not unimportantly, self defense.

    Now, consider the reasons the British wanted to confiscate the colonists muskets, powder and shot in the 1770s.

    Now, consider why cat owners regularly de-claw overly independent thinking felines.

    Or, a bit more contemporary and obscure, consider why Michonne cut off her husband’s hands and lower jaw.

    Next question.

  13. The gunhaters can’t just leave ARs alone because they have too much invested in the campaign to ban them.

    The political clowns and their media @sshats have been pounding on ARs and other evil “assault weapons” for decades.

    This campaign is all they have going for themselves, and its been a winner in NY, CO, MD and other states. If the professional gunhaters abandon the AWB, they lose a lot of political capital and abandon their base.

    First rule of capitalism: never walk away from equity.

    • Right. With Brady, it was handguns. I remember the late 80’s and 90’s with all the anti-handgun talk.

      That did not work out so well, so now they’ve shifted gears. And with this gear, they gained some traction due to a lot of factors.

      I think a good part of why they keep going after AR’s is because to some degree or another, it has been working for them. Or, said another way, it’s ALL that has been working for them.

      This is a reason why it’s important to not engage in the “I need” style argument. The just feeds their “You don’t need” pablum.

    • This. Thats why we see NOW silent on obvious anti-women attacks by the left yet burrowing further into the FedGov regulatory racket…its all about the benjamins. Same with the sordid remnants of the Civil Rights movement…Holder sugesting FCC monitoring of the media while advocating quotas for minority ownership and NAACP cant even call out a BLACK Dem pol in jail for spousal abuse while still on the job.

      Its a racket…call it Victimhood Inc. Complete with the coordination of academia and NGOs…

  14. I think I have a cunning plan! lets all put our efforts into designing a scarier rifle than the AR or AK, then we can all collectively swoon over it until the antis go after it as the new boogeyman and leave the ARs/AKs alone. This will buy us maybe six months of peace, until they ban this fictitious unproduced firearm. Rinse repeat.

  15. Why are people scared of “military” rifles, but not “military” police? Because at heart, most people are authoritarian. They *want* security, be it economic or physical, and they want someone stronger and smarter to provide it, be it the government or a large employer. This leaves them free to do as they please. Providing your own economic well-being (e.g., farming, starting a business) is frightening and at the mercy of forces beyond our control. Providing your own physical security is so terrifying, it’s better to not think about it. When we see Bearcats and SWAT teams in the street, it’s a clear signal that Security is there. When we see ordinary people with AR-15s, it’s a reminder that we provide our own security (as the militia). Some people don’t want that responsibility, and an armed citizen is a slap in the face to them.

    It’s easier to justify those fears by believing AR-15s are only for mass murderers and too dangerous for the “untrained.” Never mind that the “untrained” include military vets.

    • Eahhh No

      Most people are sheep and so badly want a sheepdog to guard them that they will flock to anything with 4 legs, a tail, sharp teeth and is shaped about like a dog. Too stupid to recognize a wolf until has them by the thoat..

        • He is just taking your reasoning one step further. In the case of selecting a protector, of the official “I am your Government and you Must Do as I Say” variety, a submissive people may not recognize the difference between authoritarian government, and a proto Fascist intending dictatorship. Once you surrender your personal safety to greater forces, they are free to do with you as they will. One measure is the intensity of the public fervor greeting the incoming savior regime. The more PR and spin supporting any political flavor, the less they are to be trusted.
          Having your own firearms is as important as a home insurance policy. Being tutored in their use is even more so. This basic provision has been forgotten in the rush to modernity. How many people nowadays even chop their own firewood?

    • Let me try, since I really hadn’t thought about it before. People who plan on the gub’t protecting them are offended by seeing a citizen armed, since “HE is obviously better protected than *I* am”, that should not be allowed! I never considered that angle, just the iggorunt nutbar angle. I suppose there is a point there, after I have supported the spending of trillions, and seeing this guy with an OC .45 on his hip and realizing he is safer than those trillions have made me, I just MIGHT be a little pissed, and of course I can’t mention that to the gub’t, the operatives I have supported and paid for may come after ME! etc, etc.

      • Oh, I wouldn’t worry too much. The book is full of wisdom for fools and foolishness for the wise. The Deity intended that those who rely on their own wisdom, should be subject to a great delusion, and be satisfied with their own thoughts.

        Others, who have the capacity to see past the quotidian and see events in a spiritual light, recognize the wonderful nature of God and His love for humankind. Those who choose to ignore His teachings and flout His Commandments need not concern themselves as to their future. They don’t have one.

  16. Does this mean they are “less” scared of my AK? Oh wait,…nevermind. Hey, I adhere to a common liberal/progressive policy and “celebrate diversity” ,,,,,
    So I have a couple of AR’s also….

    And they all have that up and down shoulder thingy, can stop locomotives, down airplanes, shoot 100rds in one second, lasers, lights, and red dots, oh my!

    Dogs and cats living together: mass hysteria! !!!! That’s what the libs want, a perpetual crises, in dire need of a .gov solution.

  17. Didn’t read the comments yet so maybe someone hit on this. I would be interested in knowing the actual, real world percentage of “gun” crimes committed with an AR 15. I suppose we’ll never know.

    • Yeah, we probably will never know, because nobody tracks the statistics to that level of granularity – That and with a nebulous “gun” crime it would include stuff like poaching.

      What we do know is this in 2011 there were about 12,664 total murders. 8,583 with firearms, 323 murders utilizing rifles (all types of rifles).

      That’s roughly 2.6% of all murders committed with rifles.
      If you want to look at just firearm murders it’s: 3.8% of all “firearm” murders committed with rifles.

      At this point you can probably make the argument that it’s not statistically significant to even bother to attempt to break out AR’s from the remainder of the rifles. So there you go. 2-4 percent of firearm murders committed with rifles — Give or take a % point

      Stats from the FBI:
      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

    • There is some interesting info here also:

      http://www.firearmsid.com/feature%20articles/0900guic/guns%20used%20in%20crime.htm

      In particular:

      —START—

      Assault weapons and homicide

      A New York State Statistical Analysis Center study of homicides in 1993 in New York City found that assault weapons were involved in 16% of the homicides studied. The definition of assault weapons used was from proposed but not enacted State legislation that was more expansive than the Federal legislation. By matching ballistics records and homicide files, the study found information on 366 firearms recovered in the homicides of 271 victims. Assault weapons were linked to the deaths of 43 victims (16% of those studied).

      A study by the Virginia State Statistical Analysis Center reviewed the files of 600 firearms murders that occurred in 18 jurisdictions from 1989 to 1991. The study found that handguns were used in 72% of the murders (431 murders). Ten guns were identified as assault weapons, including 5 pistols, 4 rifles, and 1 shotgun.

      —END—

      The first paragraph bothers me a bit; assault weapons were “linked” to those homicides, but what does that mean?

      The Virginia data seems a little more believable given the overall rifle stats. This looks like about 1.7% of the homicides studies involved the use of “assault weapons” which included pistols, rifles and shotguns that met some criteria to be so classified.

      Moving to some 2009 numbers for California,

      https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_09.pdf

      Figure two shows .223 used in only 2% of all crimes. Assuming that not all such .223’s were “assault weapons” means we could take that as an upper limit.

      In 2009, only 8 out of 147 weapons examined were “assault weapons” (Figure 8).

      The numbers are very small.

      • Well we know the ProgFascists already lie if they can’t twist the facts. And increasingly those facts include numbers provided by the FedGov. Economists have long discounted Bureau of Labor numbers and who remembers the StatRunMedia ballyhoo’ing the positive jobs stat just before the 2012 election which was later corrected downward due to California ” unexpectedly” being late wiyh their own tally.
        The EPA rebriadcast of discredited Mann hockey-stick stats…

        The 90% lie told by Hillary just before F&F… I could go on…
        What Does It Matter Anyway?

  18. OMG that graphic and Reefer Madness reference is brilliant.
    MOCK Them is the answer to the Anti-gunners.

    Check this out if you all want to have some fun at the next TTAG get together with some amatuer video splicing…Nick?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1jB7RBGVGk

    Does the piano player look like anyone we know?
    That second guy…I dunno…Chris? ah…RALPH!

    VOTEs pls…if you agree.

    • The funniest movie ever made. Okay, the second funniest after “The Road We’ve Traveled” (Obama’s infamous campaign movie).

  19. Just like with the obsession with “pit bulls” – they have pick one specific type of thing on which to focus their hatred and demonization.

    I think it has something to do with their very, very small brains.

  20. We need a greater availability of ARs with wooden furniture and chromed upper/lowers, perhaps with engraving on them. Also the choice of a wooden stock that covers the buffer tube and sweeps down to the trigger without the need of a pistol grip. Some nice wooden thumbhole stocks would be good as well.

    • y’ know that’s a good idea…theres some really imaginative and beautiful craftsmanship…art…being done in 10/22 customization.

      Now if we can get some National Endowment fof Arts money…they already done the Piss Ch…t. Whats next to Really Shock The Establishment?

      Ah…that would be too edgy I guess. Every NPR donor would fill their Depends and close their wallets too. (sigh) One can dream.

  21. GREAT movie poster! Someone put some time and thought into making that, and it made me laugh. Especially the shouler thingy that goes up. What a GREAT visual for that!!!!! I rate the poster 2 thumbs up, the actual movie? not so much

  22. Leftism is founded on and sustained by mass delusions like, “Big Government is the Solution to All Problems” and “Only the Vanguard of the Proletariat is Qualified to Rule in the Name of the Toiling Masses.” The anti-AR frenzy is only one of dozens of such jolterheaded shibboleths. In reality, they don’t want private citizens to own any firearms whatsoever. Even a matchlock on the mantlepiece is a dangerous challenge to their ultimate goal: Absolute rule of the Menshevik Mahdi.

  23. Because if they can ban the most popular firearm in the country, which is also the least likely type of firearm to be used in a crime, AND the courts let them get away with it, what CAN’T they ban?

    • And the very idea that they think they’d be accomplishing something is really unsettling. Let’s see, there are approximately 120 quadzillion AR-15s already out there, with 250 20/30 rnd magazines for each one, let’s restrict those with a bayonet lug in the future, we’ll feel so safer! Do these people get to vote?

  24. Because the “power” needs to be with the gubmint not the people. Funny, the civil rights slogan said, “more power to the people”, I guess thats just for the right people.

  25. The antis don’t mind a militarized police because they have the money to go to places where they are unlikely to run into those police. High end restaurants, gated communities, universities and similar places that don’t have the usual riff-raff that associate with criminals. To them, the police don’t bother them because they are there to keep YOU away. They are supposed to police YOUR neighborhoods and keep YOU in line. Not them. They have the money to fund their way out of DUI’s and the occasional problem their entitled kids may run into. Given enough money, a lawyer can and will obfuscate anything.

    My point is they are afraid of you and your AR-15 because they have no idea what it means to own something like that. Security, freedom, liberty, personal responsibility. All they can imagine is that it will one day be used in a crime. That is all. Maybe by you, when you “snap” or maybe it will be stolen from you. It doesn’t matter. What matters to them is that you don’t have it. Problem solved.

    Let me share a quick story. One of my work colleagues is a screaming liberal, and she admits it proudly. But, she thinks guns are cool. She even asked me to take her shooting, which I did. Thinking I could convert her to at least be pro gun I took her and a friend of hers. Afterwards I told her I’d be happy to help her choose her first gun when she was ready. Her response was a surprise, “Oh, I’d never own a gun. I am against private gun ownership” Wut? A debate followed and I posed the million dollar question, if a burglar/rapist/killer broke into your house, wouldn’t you rather have a gun to defend yourself? She said that wouldn’t be the problem, the problem was she didn’t trust herself to not shoot someone who cut her off in traffic, etc. So you see, They don’t trust themselves not to “snap” if they have access to a gun, so they can’t possibly see why you wouldn’t be the same. Make sense? I thought not, but there it is. Why did she go shooting with me then? I am a LEO. So I wrapped it up with a speech about individuals, trust and the second amendment and asked why she went shooting with me. Her answer, “Dude, you’re a cop.” (not a cop but she doesn’t know the difference”) And there you have it, from the mouth of a liberal. They don’t trust John Q. Citizen.

    They know nothing about FA ownership. Zero. They aren’t afraid of the AR, they are afraid of you. Of what you can potentially do with an AR. Because they don’t trust themselves, they certainly don;t trust you. Thanks to the media, the AR is the #1 villainized weapon right now. It is evil, and black, and scary. And you can do a lot less to them if you don’t have one. That’s why.

    • The rich anti’s (and that’s all the media-paying anti’s) don’t mind armed cops because if those cops sent lots of plain-clothes narcs into the ivy league, those cops would lose their job or budget in a flash. If cops rousted people in true gated communities, they’d lose their budgets. If cops spoiled the relaxed atmosphere in restaurants were the affluent dine, there’d be be personal phone calls to the mayor. Cops know not to go heavy on the rich or famous. It’s taught on day three at the academies.

      Do you really think ivy league kids smoked less pot than Joe Blue Collar? Do you think Kennedy’s break fewer gun, drug, or traffic laws than black kids?

  26. Antis can’t leave AR-15s alone for a few reasons IMO:

    1) Lack of understanding of what an AR-15 is by many (it is not a ultra-power rifle with special engineering to kill humans as opposed to animals that is so powerful that you can’t use it to hunt any animals because it would blow the animal to pieces, etc…)

    2) Lack of understanding that all guns are military in design

    3) Lack of understanding that all of the basic guns used by civilians are used by the military (12-gauge shotguns, 9mm pistols, .45 pistols, bolt-action hunting rifle as sniper rifle (Remington 700 in M24 and M40 form), etc…

    4) Lack of understanding of the nonsense of the term “assault weapon”

    • OK, I need to be a jerk, here, and recall some of the shit I was fed in the mid ’60’s on the subject of the M-16 (the AR-15 was not a player). I bet there are those who can confirm.

      Fires a triangular bullet. Say what?
      Bullet tumbles, to cause ever so damage when it hits somebody (never mind how would it hit anybody while tumbling).
      The AK can fire M-16 cartridges but the M-16 cannot fire AK cartridges. note here.
      A roommate of mine IN VIETNAM insisted this was true. I whipped out my XM177-E2 and popped a round out of the mag, then pulled a mag out of the captured 5-pack of AK-47 magazines, and popped a round out of that. I showed him the vast difference in the cartridge configuration, asking how this cartridge could fit in a chamber shaped like that, and followed with how a 7.62 rifle could fire a 5.56 cartridge, this was all with the physical items right in front of him. His response? Perhaps I should mention he was from CA. “Yeah, yeah, but its true, I read it in whatever.” The evidence right in front of you that you have been lied to, and you are STILL denying.

      • I actually heard someone say the one about AKs being able to fire “M16 ammo” in a Cabela’s, as a customer and store employee were going over a Romanian WASR, and the gun counter guy didn’t argue the point at all. I jumped in and stated that not only was it not true, but really fucking dangerous to try such a thing. Both just looked at me like I was an idiot.

  27. It is rule #13 in Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”:
    -“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

    The AR-15 is the target that the anti’s have chosen.

  28. It’s about control, period. Social control? The aim is to turn the social order on its head. Black is always white through their looking glass. Everyone woman needs an abortion. The man of the house is a lout, or a buffoon, or both. Father knows least! The mother wears the pants in the house; the lout merely brings home the bacon. Demean him at home, demean him when he decides playing poker at Bob’s is preferable to the constant beaking at home. Tommy will play soccer, not football at UT, like his dad did. Anyway, he’s sorta a purse kid, not a BB gun kid. Hey, those things are DANGEROUS!

  29. Simple: because their attempt to ban all firearms started with handguns, particularly ‘Saturday night specials’, but America rejected that as discriminatory to the poor. Now they are hoping to come at it from another direction.

    They are gyrating wildly, trying to stick the thin end of the wedge where they can.

  30. Because there are evil people in the world. Evil people believe in controlling other people. Evil people use the government and a militarized police force to control other people and infringe other people’s rights. Evil people are not human beings and cannot be reasoned with nor analyzed. They are just evil people. There may be one or two people who are not evil, but who operate solely on emotion and do not use logic. However, that does not absolve them of the evil title. It simply makes them quasi-evil. Simple as that.

  31. The plain facts are that guns are fun and represent the truth that the only way that the armed party may be compelled to do something is by reason, and never force. Hence, anti-gunners need the guns removed from the equation before a citizen (or subject, rather) can be told what is good for them.

    Also, they hate fun and want to take it away from anyone who has the slightest bit of it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *