Sarbanes: Your AR is a Weapon of War Not a Hunting Rifle

courtesy Capital Gazette

“I support reinstating an assault weapons ban on automatic and some semi-automatic weapons. What were designed as weapons of war are not things civilians should be able to purchase. It is not a hunting rifle. It is designed to kill people and kill people in large numbers.

“We can quibble over the definition of assault weapons. There are certain weapons, such as a fully automatic weapon that has a high number in the clip or magazine constitutes an assault weapon. As for semi-automatic, you can get into some kind of debate.” – U.S. Rep John Sarbanes (D- Baltimore County) in We are not Powerless to Respond to the Scourge of Gun Violence

comments

  1. avatar john says:

    Ban the evil looking thing as it garners attention even though statistics show its use in shootings is negligible.

    Makes perfect sense…….in Wally World.

    1. avatar Bearpaw says:

      Oh give the guy a break. He so badly wants to talk about guns especially the cool black ones but the best he can do is what we read here. Somebody take that boy to the range and make him the man he so desperately wants to be.

      Everyone knows guns are cool, and the cooler ones are even cooler.

      1. avatar anonymoose says:

        Don’t bother. Just vote him out, or elect more gun-friendly reps in swing districts to drown him out.

        1. avatar Former Marylander says:

          Have you been to Baltimore county lately that position is too soft. Ban everything, regulate everything and institute iron fisted top down government.

        2. avatar Bearpaw says:

          Why the hell would I want to go to Baltimore?

        3. avatar Robert says:

          Let’s first get something straight. BALTIMORE IS NOT BALTIMORE COUNTY! THEY ARE SEPARATE POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, AND HAVE BEEN SINCE BEFORE THE WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION.

          As a Baltimore COUNTY resident, I don’t want to go to Baltimore CITY either.

          As to Sarbanes, he’s a Democrat Twit, so what do you expect?

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Did somebody discover they were unable to find somebody more clueless? What a freaking MORON!! Thinks he know some shit, do he?

      1. avatar Kax says:

        Maryland has this twit but here in Commiefornia we have Feinstein, De Leon. And a whole hoard of twits who make laws against firearms that don’t exist. And they spout ballistic stats that cannot be achieved by any weapon regardless of caliber. The .223/5.56 is not highpowered and they were not created to kill a lot of enemy combatants but to wound a large group because if you have any tactical knowledge which these twits don’y=t, killing on enemy only takes that one off the field of battle but for every one you wound you take 4 off of the battlefield. They can have their AR-15 and whatever magazine configuration they desife give me an M-14 and the standard 20 round magazine and we start a mile apart and see who walks away.

        1. avatar binder says:

          OK, let me have 12 AR-15s with slide fires and 100 round SureFire magazines and another 30 magazines on standby and you have your M-14. Lets see how many people can be murdered at 500 yard (better yet 250 yards) by firing into a crowd for 10 minutes. Learn your history.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Actually, binder, your scenario is empirically proven to be inefficient at killing people, as demonstrated in Las Vegas. Fish in a barrel: thousands crowded and bunched in a literal kill zone, and only 50 killed.

          The bump stocks almost certainly saved hundreds of lives.

        3. avatar M1Lou says:

          Do we have a good number on the amount of people killed or injured by trampling (if any), or injured in other ways in attempting to escape?

        4. avatar daveinwyo says:

          M14E1

        5. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          We have no real data about Oct. 1… STILL… there were 58 killed and 851 (of whoch 422 were shot) wounded, but no breakdowns from there. The coroner’s reports don’t even specify caliber or location, merely ‘gunshot’ which is highly unusual.

          This shooting also occurred at around 490 yards, which is REALLY pushing what a 14.5″ or 16″ barreled 223 can do.

          For all of Paddock’s ‘plans’ he death toll was not much more than the Pulse shooter, who used an un-modified MCX.

        6. avatar California Richard says:

          1 and 10 (1 killed for every 10 wounded) is about what you’d expect for any low power weapon like an AR-15. It’s about the same ratio for handguns too when you look at the domestic tribal disputes (gang shootings).

          You can use 20 round magazines and a shoe string, and make an M1A that’s more effective than Paddock’s AR15 set up. Thank God Paddock was an idiot an used a low power, short range rifle….
          https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/01/daniel-zimmerman/when-a-shoe-string-is-a-machine-gun/

        7. avatar Chris T from KY says:

          Rapid fire weapons are a kind of a psychology weapon. Squeezing the trigger for 2 seconds might send 50 bullets down range. If one of them hits a man size target, you are just lucky. It the sound that keeps the enemy’s heads down.

          But a single sniper can stop an advance. A group of snipers can cause a retreat.

      2. avatar JW says:

        Maryland just wants to be the People’s Republic of Calicommia east. Sarbanes is just licking the bleeding heart backsides of a few of his ignorant constituents to get their votes. A wh0re by any other name.

        To all those in the Maryland Communist Republic, vote these maggots out and take back your state from the demosocialists.

    3. avatar Arizona Free says:

      Speaking of evil looking things let’s talk about my ex.

  2. avatar Anonymous says:

    My AR is for whatever I use it for. You don’t get to tell me what my machine gets used for. I do.

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      + 1000

      Or, “Damn straight it’s a weapon of war if need be, as intended in the 2nd amendment. Just hope it never comes to that.”

  3. avatar No one of consequence says:

    He should stick to overregulating something he can more convincingly pretend to know more about, like the financial system.

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      That was his old man, Senator Paul Sarbanes of Sarbanes-Oxley infamy. This is the kid.

      A lot of those northeastern states are odd, anachronistic ducks in that in a number of them, the same several families have been running each of them for generations. You see that, for example, in MD, Delaware, Mass, R.I., and even up in Maine. These aren’t places of newcomers and rugged individualism generally. The surnames may change a little over the years, due to marriages, but the family lineages endure. Those states are essentially oversized small towns.

      This kid Congressman Sarbanes has been in office since 2007. MD Senator Ben Cardin is up for re-election this year at age 75. Come 2024, he’ll retire and young Mr. Sarbanes will slide over to the Senate and plant himself for the next four decades or so.

      1. avatar No one of consequence says:

        Quite … Which is why I said he could pretend more convincingly: because his father worked on X of course he knows all about it too. (If you’re lucky, you’ve never had to deal with that attitude in person…)

        1. avatar Ignorance is Bliss! says:

          Whatever dick you thought this guy was his old man.

      2. avatar Bruce Clark says:

        4 decades or so? This country won’t be in existance in 4 decades. LMFAO.

  4. avatar ollie says:

    The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.
    The Second Amendment empowers the people to possess whatever armaments are necessary to remove tyrants from power.

    1. .. And We are all witnessing tyranny in record numbers within the USA. Supposed representatives that are coming out of the closet as self-appointed authoritarians and potentates in the name of Public Safety….

    2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      Indeed, and the would-be tyrants know that perfectly well of course.

    3. avatar CZJay says:

      A legitimate government does not fear its people. A government that does not plan to subjugate its people does not mind having parity of arms. When the government is immoral and illegitimate they seek to disarm those who would sacrifice themselves to reset the system.

      Owning modern long guns is patriotic. It’s half the solution to warding off oppression… Maintaining liberty requires oneself to be physically and mentally capable prior to it being absolutely necessary.

    4. avatar Bruce Clark says:

      What about full auto then. Good luck with your AR or AK going up against their Jets, Tanks, Training, Smart Bombs, Missles, Hand Grenades, and fully automatic small arms. lol.

      1. When did you say this to the Taliban?

  5. avatar Baldwin says:

    “…you can get into some kind of debate.” I think he misspoke there. A “debate” implies BOTH sides will get a chance to address the issues. I don’t believe for a second that he wants POTG to have a say in this “debate.”

  6. avatar kap says:

    Another F**king Democrat can’t fix S**t but can sure destroy the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the USA as a country, bet he wants to give it away and support illegals also.
    Non Sibi Sed Patriae: Molon Labe

  7. avatar The Rookie says:

    “…a fully automatic weapon that has a high number in the clip or magazine constitutes an assault weapon”

    Um, actually that doesn’t meet the definition of assault weapon you clowns cooked up back in 1994.

    Then again, anything more lethal than a slingshot is eventually going to meet their definition of an “assault weapon”….

    1. avatar KBonLI says:

      Actually I read this before
      “The popularly held idea that the term ‘assault weapon’ originated with anti-gun activists is wrong. The term was first adopted by manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearms owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.”
      So we shot ourselves in the foot so to speak. (Pun intended)

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Then you were reading different sources than I was. I heard about the AR-15 for decades before I heard it referred to as an “assault weapon” around 1993-1994, runup to AWB (I’d been a shooter since late 1950s). Which was also when the definition was cobbled together somewhat, though it is still open enough to encompass anything at all. I think whoever wrote that is trying to rewrite history, as usual.

      2. avatar What about...? says:

        On Nov 6 in Washington State their going to take a vote on the State-wide ballot to reclassify ALL semiautomatics (including .22LR with fixed tubular magazines) as “semiautomatic assault riffles. It will be illegal for anyone under 21 to purchase any modern firearm. Everyone else will be required to go throughough multiple new hoops to buy AND to keep modern firearms.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          So, your state has a different definition of “assault rifle” than the US military? Or are you talking about a definition of an “assault WEAPON”, which is not really defined by anyone because it’s nonsense? But an “assault RIFLE” is defined, and the definition includes “select fire”. Don’t let yourself get dragged into state-level arguments with idiots. We’re passing laws banning semiautomatic select fire rifles, are we? Will that still allow fully semiautomatic pistols and shotguns?

      3. avatar Ignorance is Bliss! says:

        Durrrrr, pun intended. Dickhead!

        1. avatar KBonLI says:

          What does that even mean Dickhead?

      4. avatar SoBe says:

        The term “assault weapon” originated as a corruption of “assault rifle,” originally, “Sturmgewehr.” This was a propaganda term exploited by Hitler and created around 1944 to boost German morale in WWII. Being both a scary name and associated with Hitler was just perfect for the left to use the term to demonize what they don’t like.

      5. Actually the term assault weapon originated in Nazi Germany with the introduction of the Stg 44. The initials stood for Sturm Gewehr ( assault rifle) put into use in 1944. It fired a shortened version of the military standard cartridge the 8×57 mm shortened to 8×33 mm.

    2. avatar FantaSea says:

      Then again, anything more lethal than a slingshot is eventually going to meet their definition of an “assault weapon”….

      If you follow their thinking to its logical conclusion, their endgame would have all of us in prison camps, much like North Korea. Not saying we’ll get there because thankfully we are well armed and can stop that before it happens. But if allowed, I believe this would be where we end up.

      1. avatar Bruce Clark says:

        75% of the population in this country including many on this page will willingly march into those camps as soon as they miss their first hot meal. Most can puff out their chests and quote all the bravado they want, but when push comes to shove they’ll be the first in line for their MRE “happy meal” in the gulag…

    3. avatar Cpt. Obvious says:

      Ah, the Left does love their semantics.

      “doesn’t meet the definition of assault weapon (those) clowns cooked up back in 1994. Then again, anything more lethal than a slingshot is eventually going to meet their definition of an “assault weapon”

      – The same ostensible firearms don’t Have to be referred to as ‘assault weapons’ .. which in preponderance wrongly presumes that they’d be used for ‘assaults’.

      They could just as easily, .. and more properly, .. be referred to as Arrest Weapons.

      Now, whether or not the tyrants, traitors, and seditionist foot soldiers Being Arrested were to get themselves killed while Resisting arrest, that’d be almost entirely up to them, their actions, and their poor life-choices.

  8. avatar MyName says:

    “There are certain weapons, such as a fully automatic weapon that has a high number in the clip or magazine constitutes an assault weapon.”

    Can they really be this dumb? Sure buddy, go ahead and draft some legislation to make it illegal to sell a citizen a new fully automatic weapon. Tell you what, I’ll be generous and say that you can even make it illegal to sell someone a used one that was manufactured in the last thirty years. Go ahead and get to work on that.

    1. avatar Bob Jones says:

      Sarbanes is a second generation demtard. He’s the Maryland equivalent of Jesse Jackson Junior, not even half as smart as papa. We need term limits AND a five generation separation between politicians from the same family holding a federal office. Sarbanes is the kind of idiot who put the Enfield Jungle Carbine on the AWB.

      1. avatar MyName says:

        Well, you only need a Jungle Carbine if you are in a jungle. Amiright?

        1. avatar Bad Comedy says:

          You sure are. You’re also cripplingly unfunny!

      2. avatar Adam says:

        Sarbanes has everything going for him. He comes from political royalty and he is in the second most gerrymandered district in the nation. Guy stands zero chance of ever losing his seat in a general election and very little chance in a primary. You’ll be hearing from him for the rest of your life unless we can end gerrymandering.

        1. avatar Queens says:

          Right. End gerrymandering on both sides.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Lots of folks working on that, as we speak. But only on one side, of course, this fruit loop won’t be affected.

        3. avatar ollie says:

          Modern grotesque gerrymandering was revived by democrat Eddie Bernice Johnson of the Dallas area in the early 1990’s. When Texas redistricted after the 1990 Census, she was allowed to shape her district like a 2 legged spider. The legs extended to include the residences of GOP representatives on either side of her district. The representatives would have to move or run against her in a designated black district. When the GOP complained, the democrat in charge of redistricting laughed (literally) and refused to be reasonable. The GOP took power a couple of years later and the shoe was moved to the other foot.

  9. avatar Dan in Detroit says:

    I’ve got a dozen or so… they must all be broken.
    Only one of them got to shoot something other than a target, and that was just a possum that was messing up my yard.
    And an AR in 300 is great for deer. one in 450 is great for deer in areas where necked cartridges aren’t allowed. .223 is great for coyote and varmint (acceptable for home defense, but a little underpowered for a quick stop on a large man)
    I don’t understand how politicians get to lie so much and nobody does anything. You’d think there would be perjury charges or something.

  10. avatar Craig in IA says:

    What standing army or actual military unit uses an AR 15?

    1. avatar binder says:

      They are all AR-15s. The M designation is just a military part number. A M9 is still a Beretta 92. Better question is what military unit actually uses an AR-15 in full auto.

  11. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    And of course, comments were turned off in the cited article.

    1. avatar Bob Jones says:

      Democrats/Progressives/Liberals are absolutely opposed to free speech and secret balloting. They want their mob to rule over the citizenry. Like happened in Venezuela. Which is a major reason for law abiding citizens to possess modern sporting rifles.

    2. avatar What about...? says:

      They decided the debate was over

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        No platforms for opposing ideas.

  12. avatar Wiregrass says:

    Hunting rifle designs in general have always started out as weapons of war that were then adapted to sporting purposes. So what’s your point?

  13. avatar Quasimofo says:

    Well, everyone knows that Paul Mauser’s only motivation was to make a better hunting rifle. That’s why Mauser rifles were so popular back in the day – hunting.

  14. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Finally somebody gets it! The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
    Yes, these weapons are designed to kill people. Yes, they are designed to preserve the security of a free state.

    Don’t destroy the security of free states and I’m pretty sure there won’t be any major problems. A just government governing with the consent of the People has nothing to fear from those People.

    For somebody who understands the 2A so well, its disheartening that he fumbles the ball on the one yard line with his blathering about banning semi-automatic rifles and committing other infringements upon the Second Amendment.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Don’t destroy the security of free states and I’m pretty sure there won’t be any major problems. A just government governing with the consent of the People has nothing to fear from those People.

      THAT should be our mantra going forward.

      Well said Jonathan – Houston.

      1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        Ahh…well, the first sentence there is mine. The second is a paraphrasing of one of the Framers. I’d guess Franklin, but I don’t specifically recall.

    2. avatar Bruce Clark says:

      You forget to mention the other half of the people who don’t agree with the government that’s currently in office at any given time. What I’ve seen growing over the last 20 years in this country is an intolerance of either party and an inability to work in the system when they’re not in power. In my 65 years on this rock I have never seen the inability to work for a greater goal between the Republicans and Democrats at such dangerous levels. Good luck in the future if you don’t nip this in the bud before too much longer and something really big and tragic happens. We as a nation are built on working togather for the greater good. And that’s not where I see this going. FIX IT OR YOU’RE DOOMED!

  15. avatar Adam says:

    I am unfortunately from John Sarbanes’ district. Let it be known that the only reason this guy has any political power is because he is in the second most gerrymandered district in America. He has essentially hand picked the people that will vote for him to ensure that time and time again he wins re-election.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9a7de4534c34

  16. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    U.S. Rep John Sarbanes,

    We have AR-15 rifles in case you and your ilk declare that you will no longer be civil to your political adversaries.

    Of course that is precisely why you don’t want your political adversaries to have them.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      Uncommon Sense,

      A pox upon you for putting that vile woman’s face in front of me and almost making me lose my breakfast.

      Can’t you find someone prettier, like Ginsburg or Feinstein?

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        How about a tastefully-nude photo of Barbra Boxer?

        (Thank you! I aim to please…)

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Curtis in IL,

        I share the same sentiment. I offer my sincere apologies.

      3. avatar DrDKW says:

        Or Pelosi?

  17. avatar MarkF says:

    Good Lord. OF COURSE the AR-15 is a weapon of war. Why the hell do you think we own them in such numbers? Well, we actually own them because there aren’t enough legal true machine guns available and they are very expensive. But if we could, we’d own them too.

    Protecting freedom is pretty hard when all you have is a rock in hand.

    1. avatar MyName says:

      This guy thinks he is talking about machine guns.

      1. avatar binder says:

        I don’t know, Vegas shows that you can now flex them into the role of a machine gun. Yes there are real issues with overheating on any AR-15 firing at that rate, but that was easy to fix with a dozen New York reloads.

        1. avatar MyName says:

          I just mean that in his quote he says, “fully automatic … constitutes an assault weapon”. Ok, fine, propose legislation to ban fully automatic weapons. This guy is so dumb he doesn’t even know about the 1934 NFA and the Hughes amendment.

        2. avatar binder says:

          Well thanks to a bump stock you can easily get 500 RPM until the gun explodes, so want exactly is the difference.

  18. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    The truth is sometimes startling, but here it is… the Second Amendment was written to protect the citizen’s right to KILL PEOPLE. (People who would deprive them of their life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and their Constitutional Republic). That’s it folks. Don’t like it? Repeal it. Anything else, including any/all legislation and/or bureaucratic Infringements are illegitimate and is what the Second Amendment was written to stop.

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      You know what? I wouldn’t really care if the 2A was repealed. I would still own and carry whatever weapon(s) I felt might be useful – legally or not. Wouldn’t be my first rodeo.

      1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        Agreed. The only real question is when the Civil War would start. During the process of repeal, or after.

        1. avatar GunnyGene says:

          Judging by the public rhetoric of Sarbanes, and others like him, it seems to me that the only people who are trying their damnedest to instigate a civil war are the Dem/Socialists. Simply put, they are telling us that there won’t be a shooting war, if we surrender to their demands. Sorry, Charlie; it ain’t gonna be that easy.

          Everyone else is simply trying to mind their own business, and/or preparing for what appears to be an inevitable conflict.

        2. avatar Bruce Clark says:

          SHIT, 75% of gun owners today would be in line within a week if the Feds outlawed guns tomorrow. Who do you think you’re kidding?

  19. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Dear Congressman Sarbanes,

    My rifle is designed to kill tyrants like you.

    It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      And if you succeed in getting that war started, you know, the one you want so much, when it’s over the AR-15 WILL be a hunting rifle, and we will be hunting YOU.

  20. avatar 2aguy says:

    The lever action rifle is a weapon of war, the AR-15 is not. The pump action shotgun is a current weapon of war, the AR-15 is not. The revolver was a weapon of war…the AR-15 is not. The Bolt action rifle is a current weapon of war….the AR-15 is not. This is why they use the words “weapon of war.” If we give them that definition, they can ban lever action rifles, pump action shotguns, bolt action rifles and even 5-6 shot revolvers……

    in Friedman v Highland Park, Justice Scalia stated that the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment, clarifying for the fools on the lower courts that Heller meant what it said, that all bearable arms, are protected…..

    1. avatar binder says:

      “Weapon of war” is a political talking point. It is meaningless, just sounds good. Don’t try and define it. I’m sure that the anti’s will not be able to.

  21. avatar HP says:

    This guy is just another cookie-cutter totalitarian blowhard.

  22. avatar Sua Sponte says:

    Damn this guy does dumb good….

  23. avatar Gman says:

    Exactly which part of shall not be infringed is so tough to understand? Scalia did us no favors with his bullshit “common use” test. Under that flawed philosophy any new weapon is not “common use” and therefor may be banned. Rubbish. All weapons trace their origins and efficacy to the battlefield. Many are adopted in form, whole or part, for civilian use. No law is constitutional which restrict, inhibits, or dissuades the free exercise of any right in any way. The “common use” test is diametrically opposed to the finding in US v. Miller (1939). Miller cites the prefatory statement as specifically protecting military grade weapons. That finding virtually negates the NFA wholesale. Then Scalia went on to talk about “dangerous” weapons may be restricted. Excuse me? I define a dangeous weapon as one that fails to perform as designed and goes boom when it shouldn’t. In other words, a defective weapon. Yes, let’s do ban defective firearms. I’m all for that!

    dangerous adjective
    dan·ger·ous | ˈdān-jə-rəs;
    ˈdān-jərs, -zhrəs
    Definition of dangerous
    1 : involving possible injury, pain, harm, or loss : characterized by danger
    2 : able or likely to inflict injury or harm

    Under that definition all firearms are “dangerous” and could be restricted or banned. And that is crapola of the highest magnitude. This is what happens when people try to justify restricting rights.

    Exactly which part of shall not be infringed is so tough to understand?

    1. avatar Tom says:

      Texas Ranger Charlie Miller was minding his own business when a concerned citizen came up to him, noted the hammer cocked back on the big 1911 dangling from the Ranger’s belt, and asked, “Isn’t that dangerous?” Charlie replied, “I wouldn’t carry the son-of-a-bitch if it wasn’t dangerous.”

  24. avatar former water walker says:

    Perhaps this demtard WANTS a war…I know who’d win. Your choice goodball😄

    1. avatar Gman says:

      Without resorting to name calling which is the tool of weak minded folk who have no salient converse to add to civil discourse, you are nonetheless correct. As the Democrat (not democratic) party moves left towards socialism and gains support thereof we are being inexorably driven towards a 2nd (pun intended) Civil War. One they are woefully unprepared to wage. These folk seem incapable of devining the logical outcome of their actions. The USA is not Venuzuela. We are not a disarmed populace. And the anti-gun party is at a slight disadvantage should it come to arms. Real Americans are more than willing to finish a shooting war to keep their toilette paper.

      1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        The modern democrat party are THE domestic enemies our Founders warned us about. Thank God they had the foresight to proscribe a remedy for their elimination, too.

  25. avatar JFrame says:

    The AR is not a hunting rifle? Hummmm….Tell that to the last couple of deer I shot. DPMS and a Nikon scope makes a fine deer rifle for the tiny deer in central Texas.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      If you hit Google images and search for “AR-15 hunting,” you will find thousands of pictures of people posing with their dead game and their ARs.

      That’s what Kavanaugh should have told Feinstein to do when she questioned whether they were in “common use.”

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Boy, did he make her look like a moron, or what? I thought she was gonna cry!

        1. avatar Bruce Clark says:

          Kavanaugh didn’t need much help making Dianne Feinstein look like a moron. It’s pretty common knowledge.

  26. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    We’ve seen how well Baltimore’s gun control measures work. Don’t they lead the way per capita in the US for homicides?

    Also, they are indeed weapons of war designed to kill people. They are part of a measure to protect us the people from you the pol should you forget your obligation to civil service and try to hijack the country for authoritarian means.

  27. avatar Texican says:

    He says, assault weapons are for killing. I say:

    Well, duh!
    I know!
    Of course they are!
    Wouldn’t have it any other way!
    Just as intended!
    The Founding Father’s would be proud!

    Keep it up, Sarbanes! Every time a democrat/liberal/socialist/communist whines about “assault” weapons another one gets bought by an American Patriot.

  28. avatar Gman says:

    AR is a Weapon of War Not a Hunting Rifle

    I guess that depends upon what (or whom) you are hunting. The real question is how much longer we POTG are willing to put up with this nonsense and what would be the logical outcome of that. I don’t think folk like this understand the hornets nest they are beating. Or maybe they just don’t care. A little revolution now and again is a good thing, no?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      These guys do not seem to understand that if they are ever successful in kicking off a shooting war, it will not be over when they surrender the following week. It won’t be over until people like this have been hunted down and executed along with their entire family, spouses, parents, children, and siblings. Exterminate the hateful tyrants!

      1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        I agree, unfortunately. When they finally force us to DEFEND ourselves and our nation against their “War of Leftist Aggression” and the genie is out of the bottle, I think we’ll witness the literal genocide of millions of these feral leftists.

    2. avatar RA-15 says:

      Absolutely a good thing !!

    3. avatar CZJay says:

      They don’t want a fight. They want to take your life, liberty and property silently. That’s why they have a two party system to fool you. One party attracts the attention of the hive, then the other party steals the honey when no one is home to defend it.

      The American people have been hoodwinked for a long time.

  29. avatar Gman says:

    I wonder, would General George Washington have banned the AR-15 from use in the militias? Would he have thought they weren’t worthy of hanging over the fireplace in every American home and must be made illegal? Certainly many common weapons in colonial civilian hands were equal to if not better than those the British were issued.

    1. avatar BehindEnemyLines says:

      Field guns capable of decimating entire ranks of men or gutting a building in a single shot from a thousand yards or so were often privately owned in 1791. An AR seems like a step down in firepower, but way more mobile.

  30. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    The explicit intent of the second amendment was to bar government from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms of war.

    I await someone to articulate the counter-argument that the State asserted an interest in the people standing up a militia armed with non-military arms. I could use the laugh.

    1. avatar MyName says:

      We have all heard how many of the patriots who fought in the revolution were armed with whatever hunting musket they had on hand – and it worked, they won. So, maybe that is what the founders wanted – a bunch of people with hunting gear to take on the world’s most powerful army. It worked once so it must be a model for how things should be. Now I understand why the antis are so fixated on hunting rifles – that’s what the founders intended for us to use to fight against an actual army. I can’t believe I never figured this out before. I see the light – only hunting rifles are protected by the 2A – its so obvious.

      (How’d I do? Are you laughing?)

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        “We have all heard how many of the patriots who fought in the revolution were armed with whatever hunting musket they had on hand – and it worked, they won.”

        Damn straight.

        I still contend that even if we were limited to single-shot classic hunting rifles in .308 we could still fight and win against our military.

        If they were truly worried about what we could do with those guns, they’d outlaw long-distant shooting…

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Spot on, second day of the war rebel forces will have thousands of M4s and hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammo, several Bradleys, helicopters, cargo planes, radios, and lots of experts in the use of those items, current or former soldiers. These doofuses seem to think that the lessons they have learned in the Venezuelas and NoKos of the world, where people have been under the boot for many decades, will work here. If they start that war, they will not survive long enough to learn their errors.

  31. avatar CalGunsMD says:

    It *IS* a weapon of war.
    That’s the point of the second amendment.
    Now run along back to your finger paints.

    1. avatar Jon Choad says:

      How do you know he finger paints? Why is it relevant in any event?

      Oh, now I get it. You’re trying to be dismissive. Well, you failed. You just succeeded in sounding like an insufferable asshat.

      No wonder you’re alone.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        JON!! Does your mommy know you’re playing with her computer again? How is your message any different than the one you criticize? No wonder you’re alone.

  32. avatar Gary says:

    My AR has never been to war and if it ever has to go, it will be unwillingly and with the hope that I may survive to pry something better from my enemy’s cold dead hands; that being necessary only because idiots like Sarbanes have weakened and divided the nation making it subject to invasion or tyranny.

  33. avatar Jon says:

    2017 over 40,000 people die from you assault motor vehicle weapons. I don’t see where y’all have a US Constitution Rights to this kinds of assault weapons.

  34. avatar D Y says:

    In other words, we NEED to make sure we use AR’s hunting, so that argument comes null and void?

    I would gladly send him pics of myself using AR’s to hunt, but for some odd reason, and I know no one here will agree with me, but I think offering this guy visual proof, wouldn’t change his mind.

    Don’t know, don’t care, won’t listen. (D)

  35. avatar Pawl from Florida says:

    Why don’t these liberals introduce legislation for banning violent gangs ? Murderers have rights. The law abiding citizen doesn’t.

  36. avatar pod says:

    No shit it’s a weapon of war. All guns are. Even the race guns can trace their origins to war weapons.
    Grandpa’s old Remington has it’s roots in some Army contract. The fact that you can take a deer with it at 500 yards is a convenient spin-off use.

    The internet is weapon of war. DARPA came up with the idea so the military could communicate and fight after the first nuclear strike.

    And yes, the government is powerless to stop guns. And good. Pass all the laws you want, guns will still get out into the wild somehow. If the Colombians can smuggle ten tons of coke into the country, smuggling some real-deal AKs shouldn’t be an issue. Nevermind that domestic supply chains are porous. Government guns disappear with alarming frequency.

    Ask the Steinle family about that one…

  37. avatar Sian says:

    This guy is clearly so earnest about his ideas, and also clearly utterly ignorant of firearms.

  38. avatar Ironhead says:

    And your statement is an opinion not a fact.
    Bless your heart.

  39. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “.. What were designed as weapons of war”

    The Department of Justice disagrees with you.

    So do I.

    1. avatar Jon Choad says:

      …and we ALL know what happens when we disagree with Chip in Florida. What a true badass!

      1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

        “…What a true badass!”

        Awww… I didn’t know you cared. I’m flattered.

        I’m still not going out with you to anywhere other than the range, but I’m flattered.

  40. avatar MIO says:

    Mine is both but then again so is my muzzleloader, knife and ax. I am the controller of which it is

    1. avatar Jon Choad says:

      Ohhhhh, how fucking cool and profound.

      Not really, bro. You’re an asshole.

  41. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Sarbanes just let slip the thing he fears most. It isn’t the people who shoot deer or the miniscule amount of crime committed with any rifle. He and his ilk fear we the people will eventually tire of their tyranny, and water the tree of liberty with the blood of his fellow tyrants. He just wants to deny us the best tools for the job.

    1. avatar Jon Choad says:

      Ohhhhh, you’re such a badass, sitting behind your computer tapping out veiled threats. Watch out folks, ‘Rusty Trombone, err, Chains’, is fixin’ to get his revenge for being a fat failure!!!

      1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

        Thank you for your concern as to my success, I assure you that my early retirement allows me to pursue non monetary interests, and congratulations on maintaining your troll hood. Nothing I can say here will help you to understand the depths of your own ignorance. Perhaps someone with more patience and far more time can bring illumination to your dark, dim world.

  42. avatar Ralph says:

    “It is designed to kill people and kill people in large numbers.”

    Hey, Sarballs, stop trying to protect the mobs of insurrectionists that you, Soros and the rest of you thieves are supporting.

    We’re not giving up control to your storm troopers.

  43. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    I’m good with calling any of my guns weapons of war. The second amendment isn’t about hunting. It’s about arms of war. The was the implication in U.S. vs. Miller — a short-barrelled shotgun wasn’t protected because it wasn’t a weapon of war.

    1. avatar pod says:

      One of my faves is:

      Politician starts getting mouthy about “military grade” weapons in the hands of civilians.

      My response – “My firearms aren’t military grade, they’re way better than that!”

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        “Military grade” = Built by the lowest bidder.

  44. avatar el Possum Guapo Standartenfuher " they think we're making pizza's Oberst von Burn says:

    Every firearm I own is a weapon of war, that’s why I’ve got them

  45. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    Perhaps Congressman Sarbanes would like to quibble with me regarding the 4th Amendment

    1. avatar Jon Choad says:

      ‘Quibble’ with a woman of your intellect??? No way lady, Sarbanes KNOWS when he’s beaten.

      1. avatar Tom says:

        Choad, how long have you been sucking d*cks?

        1. avatar Jon Choad says:

          Heh. Good one, there, Tommy. Lately I’ve been busy tappin’ you ex wife. Thanks for being such as asshole. She treats me really good!

  46. avatar RA-15 says:

    Sarbanes , check your grammar. It shows your intellect. My AR’s are tools. They are simply sitting in my safe , waiting to be used in a fight against tyrants , targets , hunting , even self defense , if the need ARises. What part of ” shall not be infringed ” do you not comprehend ???

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Some people even use firearms to play “tag.”

      Forget doing such a thing in the land of the free and home of the brave.

  47. avatar Michael Buley says:

    “What were designed as weapons of war are not things civilians should be able to purchase. It is not a hunting rifle. It is designed to kill people and kill people in large numbers.”

    Kill people in large numbers is what will need to come about when overthrowing a traitorous government. AR-15s are just a start. Whatever weapons the government has, we should have more. That was the point of the 2nd Amendment. The ‘body’ which should be regulated and restrained is the government, which in theory (though no longer in practice) serves US, and is there are our behest.

  48. avatar DaveDetroit says:

    Quite frankly, the 2nd Amendments contemplates the threat or actuality of overwhelming destructive force against a government that becomes tyrannical or against mobs such as ANTIFA should the need arise. It has nothing at all to do with hunting. Governments have murdered more of their own citizens than any gang or criminal could ever hope to. The Founders were quite aware that the 2nd Amendment enshrined a natural right to rise up against an oppressive government with force-of-arms. The ONLY rational argument for banning semi-automatic weapons is to make it easier for a government to enslave the masses. Anything else is a lie. I foresee a time when they push too far and receive a backlash that has nothing to do with the ballot box. Why are civilians unfit for semi-automatic weapons while the EPA has full auto? And if it comes to that, these idiots will be shocked at the destructive power of lever action rifles, revolvers and even the old fashioned shotgun.

  49. avatar Geoff says:

    Uneducated uniformed idiot.
    All new full auto weapons have been banned for civilians since May 19th, 1986 when the Hughes Amendment to FOPA was signed into Law by President Reagan.
    It was the Democrats that took them away.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Ban_On_New_Automatic_Firearms
    The Government admits that the AR15 and semi-auto rifle like it “are not weapons of war”.
    https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/its-settled-government-rules-that-ar-15s-are-not-weapons-of-war/
    And if you go further down the article you can see that your Barrett semi-auto .50 caliber rifles are also not a weapon of war because there are no 50 round magazines for it. I’m not even sure anything over 10 rounds exists.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Do belts count? A 10-round box mag would be pretty huge.

      1. avatar Geoff says:

        Not a magazine, so I guess a belt with any number of rounds would be OK.
        https://i.pinimg.com/originals/66/8a/4d/668a4dade4871915249288402ff9bcde.jpg

  50. avatar todd says:

    Its interesting how those most “knowledgeable” about guns have never held one.

  51. avatar Jean-Claude says:

    The M1 Garand was good enough to defeat the Axis Powers. I guarantee a semi-skilled rifleman could wipe out a concert hall with one, given a good enough position and enough en bloc clips.

    A Winchester 1897 shotgun is a lethal implement in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.

    Where does the line get drawn with these people?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Really? When no one except the government controls a single gun of any kind. That’s where.

  52. avatar Old Bill says:

    And guess what, Sarbanes, IT WAS MEANT TO BE. That’s because of the 2d Amendment’s original reason for being. It’s not hunting. It’s for shooting your government when it “…becomes destructive towards these ends…” Weapons of war are PRECISELY what the founding fathers wanted every citizen to own.

  53. avatar Scoutino says:

    Old Bill is right.
    “It is not a hunting rifle. It is designed to kill people and kill people in large numbers.”
    Yes, so what? Automatic and semi automatic rifles are exactly what well regulated militia needs. Why let the government ban the best personal weapon for defense against tyrannical government?

    And another tip-
    There Is No Scourge of Gun Violence.
    Most (about 2/3) of people killed with guns pulled the trigger themselves.
    Majority of the rest is criminals shooting other criminals. Using handguns.
    More people is killed with hand and feet than with ANY RIFLE.
    Homicides with ‘assault weapons’ are statistically insignificant.

  54. avatar Ton E says:

    Nobody tell him that ARs are used for hunting………

  55. avatar Chris Morton says:

    NO, I REFUSE.

    Better think of something else.

  56. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    Lets have a socialists ban. Millions of people have been killed by socialists and their cousins, communists. These evil people are weapons and purveyors of rebellion and genocide. Ban them !

  57. avatar piper says:

    John Sarbanes is obviously a low T soy boy that hates America and The Bill of Rights.

  58. avatar Rob says:

    Nobody ever said they weren’t weapons of war.

    What does this knob think a well-regulated militia does? Play tiddlywinks?

    We will not tolerate new illegal infringements. End of story.

  59. avatar Eric Cartman says:

    Oh, it absolutley IS!
    Let’s just hope it never comes to that…

  60. avatar Alfonso Alfredo Rodriguez says:

    A weapon of war? well so are bows and arrows, revolvers, slings for throwing rocks, black powder muskets, axes, knives and even skis use by soldiers when fighting in a snow environment. The fact is, everything can be a weapon of war, even a fork for eating salads. This man has no comprehension of what he is saying but that is no surprise, specially during an election campaign.

  61. avatar Michae says:

    Whose rights are violated if I possess a weapon of war?

  62. avatar barry smith says:

    I keep forgetting that the 2A is about hunting.

  63. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    It would be cost prohibitive for ordinary civilians to try and buy and possess their own real machine guns.

    The purpose of the bump stock was to lower the cost of a rapid-fire weapon to bring it down to the level of ordinary civilians purchasing power. American Ingenuity going around bad constitutional law.

    Gun control using economic discrimination has been the Cornerstone of gun-control along with racism.

    Simply saying as some people have suggested that you could 3D print your own bump stock accessory misses the point. It’s very costly just to purchase the 3D printing machine.

    By putting Slide Fire out of business they have effectively raise the price of a rapid-fire weapon again just as they did so with a 1986 machine gun ban making all existing machine guns extremely expensive.

    And sadly the “gun Community” agreed with this. Just as many of them secretly agreed with a machine gun ban. These people support the NFA they just won’t admit it in a public forum.

    The best way to keep your Liberty is to make sure the ordinary civilian has access to the same Weaponry that civilian police or the military have.

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      ALL forms of restrictive gun legislation are unconstitutional. Period.

  64. avatar Wally1 says:

    Actually possessing a full auto weapon is not cost prohibitive, just don’t let anyone know. If the crazy leftists/dems ban AR’s it will be the spark to ignite a civil war, and rightfully so. There comes a time that truth and morals matter more than life.

  65. avatar Clifford Mechels says:

    What do you expect from a Democrat, unless they disarm their future subjects how else can they safely turn the country into a Socialist dictatorship with them in control?

  66. avatar Bert Hyman says:

    He says “I support reinstating an assault weapons ban on automatic and some semi-automatic weapons.”

    Absolutely astonishing ignorance.

  67. avatar Jorge says:

    My 1903 Springfield, lever action Marlin, 1911, Beretta 92, Remington 870, M1 Garand are firearms that saw battlefield service. My Ar15s? No. Never ever. Wouldn’t it be a miracle to see a politician know what they are talking about and not lie to our faces. The ignorance, it hurts.

  68. Should I inform the hogs and deer I brought down with my AR. Apparently, I am using it wrong.

  69. avatar Geo says:

    During the Los Angeles riots which were a result of the Rodney King incident. 56 innocent citizens were murdered and most of the area business’s were looted and burned. Which of the business’s were not looted or burned? The Korean-American merchant’s who were standing in front of their stores with AR-15’s. They didn’t have to fire a shot since the rioters and looters walked by and knew better then to start something. Since the police can’t protect you during a riot you have to protect yourself against “disparity of force” with superior fire power.

  70. avatar Michael says:

    A True genuine Jerk off.a Bill Clinton Wannabe ? S T F Up Jack off The stories he tells oh my!A political Hostile who sows BS and I bet has not bothered to read or understand the Bill of rights or have read the Federalist Papers.This is all about disarmament led by dictatorial NWO UN 21 Agenda Deep sate Commie cabal of Europe who are Pushed by Jihad Islamist,who is controlled by Anti Christ of the Phrases church ( JEWS of evil ) who hate Jesus, is waht it is all about.

  71. avatar Kim Williams says:

    Will somebody give Sarbanes a history book? Second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It is to keep the government in check. Believe it!

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email