Pitts: No Rational Person Supports AR-15 Ownership

civilian AR ownership must be banned

courtesy Cordelia Gun Exchange

Clearly, anyone in favor of civilian AR ownership is 1) disturbed, 2) an NRA stooge, or 3) has a financial interest in arms sales.

…here’s the thing.

The AR-15 and its variants should be banned.

Specifically, the country should return to a 1990s ban on so-called “assault weapons” that U.S. Congress let expire in 2004, and which included the AR-15 and similar guns, as well as certain higher-capacity magazines. The time is ripe to have this discussion.

“I do not support the unrestricted ownership of semiautomatic assault weapons by civilians,” [said Dean Winslow, a doctor and retired Air Force colonel].

No rational person would — unless it is someone with their own idiosyncratic attachment to the AR-15 or is a politician paid off by the National Rifle Association, the gun industry or some other lobbyist.

– Myron Pitts for the Fayetteville Observer, Time to Bring Back the Federal Assault Weapons Ban

comments

  1. avatar James Matters says:

    If the framers of the constitution were alive today, all of the weapons the British were on the march to take in Lexington and Concord would have been AR15 and its variants.

    1. avatar Patrick says:

      Nah the Brits use those bullpup rifles (although they use the same mags as an AR)

      1. avatar Big Sky says:

        The opinion writer also admitted:

        “The plain truth is there is nothing an AR-15 can do that some other gun cannot, whether we are talking target practice, hunting or self-defense. Meanwhile we cannot ignore that American’s favorite gun is also mass shooters’ favorite gun.”

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          Could it be –just speculating– that the mass shooters might also be Americans? Or that any other autoloader is more expensive. Could be.

          BTW, they’ve claimed the AR15 was mass shooter’s favorite since before the AWB, I’m fairly sure it’s BS as much now as then if the numbers are run.

        2. avatar BR says:

          Actually you are right. About 50% of mass shooters don’t use anything that could be called and “assault weapons”. Pistols are what is used virtually always.

        3. avatar MyName says:

          Well, in that case, he’s even dumber than I thought.

          We must all recognize that a Nikon really does nothing that a Canon, Sony or Pentax can’t do but Nikon is the preferred brand of child pornographers so we must ban Nikon.

        4. avatar Boz says:

          If other guns are similarly capable, then why the need to ban it? That’s doublespeak.

  2. avatar Mad Max says:

    What was that about “military utility” in the 1939 Miller case?

    Shouldn’t our ARs be select-fire?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Absolutely!

      I am waiting for a case to go to the U.S. Supreme Court to make exactly that argument.

    2. avatar EWTHeckman says:

      I was going to make a variant of the same argument.

      Rational people don’t try to run away from or twist the crystal clear wording of the 2nd Amendment because we understand the lessons of history and the reason it exists. We don’t support AR-15 ownership because the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment means that we support civilian ownership of M-16’s and “every other terrible implement of the soldier.”

      Rational people don’t try to create an incubator for tyranny.

    3. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      I would argue for gun control on a double barreled shotgun before I would in an AR-15. As much as the libs love to point out the “militia” part in terms of regulation, it is also easy to argue that the guns are there to form the militia so that means guns usable in service of a militia would bear a higher degree of protection. In our current era, that’s not muskets or double barreled shotguns, it’s an M4.

  3. avatar Madcapp says:

    No rational person supports a forward assist. Time to get that nonsense off the upper.

    1. avatar Gladius et Scutum says:

      Plenty of uppers without FA if you prefer not to forcibly jam damaged rounds into your chamber.

      1. avatar Erik says:

        Why would you do that? Ive used the Forward Asist to get a bolt out when I racked it without a buffer spring and I’ve used it when I’ve pulled the charging handle back and released it too early so the bullet fed but not all the way into the chamber.

        Where do people get this black and white ideas?

        1. avatar matthew newton says:

          I use mine in my hunting 6.5G AR-15 most times I am chambering a round manually in the field. I ease the bolt forward and it won’t go in to battery 100% if I do that. I don’t need the clang of letting the buffer spring carry the bolt forward with full momentum.

          Sure it is a bit safety overkill to walk out to a morning sit without anything chambered, but that’s the way I do it.

          So it takes a whack or two with my palm heel to get it the rest of the way in to battery.

          I’ve done a handful of press checks in my time also, and sometimes you need the FA to get it back in to battery without just hauling back the charging handle far enough to pick-up the next round. Or again if you need/want to get it back in to battery more quietly.

          Are FA generally needed? Nope. I do use them and still want them on my ARs.

    2. avatar I1uluz says:

      It’s only there due to US Army requirement, the original order from the USAF didn’t have it. Browning didn’t want the 1911 to have a safety, but US Army had to have it. The must have a safety is still a requirement of US Army, Sig had to add it to the P320 to win the contract.

    3. avatar former water walker says:

      My Smith&Wesson M&P Sport has no forward assist…since it has no dust cover I can push a boo-lit forward if needed. 5 STAR TTAG review. Don’t give a rats azz about this opinion😡

      1. avatar UpInArms says:

        The Sport didn’t sell too well. So S&W put the assist and the cover back on, called it the Sport II, and now it’s selling just fine. Eye of the beholder…

    4. avatar Agreed says:

      How else am I supposed to practice corrective actions without the Jaminator?

    5. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      Not a hunter, using an AR, I assume. When I get my daughter to the stand I can either “ca-chunck” an echo through the woods and scare off any deer. Or preferably slowly slide the charging handle into place and tap the forward assist a few times to quite the chambering of a round.

    6. avatar Daniel G Dixon says:

      That would completely screw with my technique. I was trained on an M4 with the forward assist, and always give it a little tap after releasing the charging handle, just habit, not necessary, but every now and then I notice the bolt did not seat fully into battery, so I guess the U.S. Army was right in training us to develope that habit.

  4. avatar Shire-man says:

    What is this, 1988? Fudds didn’t notice tens of millions of AR’s flying off the shelves over the last 30 years? I suppose not one of those people is “reasonable.”

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      How else would 100,000,000 children be killed in school shootings every year?

      1. avatar Douglas Riggs says:

        That’s a nice number you pulled out of thin air. You must have got that figure from Everytown for gun safety.

        1. avatar cgray says:

          You’re smart.

        2. avatar Arizona Free says:

          No he got it from the 9 yr old kid that wrote that report about the billions of straws floating around the ocean. The one California used as the basis for the straw ban.

        3. avatar Andrew Lias says:

          It was a Trace Article come on now!

        4. avatar William Liddell says:

          I think, think mind you, he was being sarcastic as we all know the number is beyond any possible reality.

  5. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    I DON’T support the unrestricted comments made by some fruitcake doctor! Who thinks he can dictate what rights someone can exercise! Come to think of it, I DON’T believe people like him should have unrestricted 1st Amendment privileges…..STFU Doc…..

    1. avatar BLAMMO says:

      Twitter is the “Assault Weapon” of the 1st Amendment.

      1. avatar RedEagle1 says:

        Yes!! It’s horifying. I have been suspended the past 3 months for supporting gun rights defending America from the words of crazy communists and socialist . I can’t edit, post, share, locked my account, not even to delete it. Twitter is evil and will play part in the destruction of our country. I am surly not the only American banned from Twitter.

    2. avatar RA-15 says:

      I think we all agree with that Aaron.

    3. avatar Tom Williams says:

      ^^^
      This!

  6. avatar 2aguy says:

    Everyone needs to read Justice Scalia’s dissent in Friedman v Highland Park…and yes, it was a dissenting opinion but only because he wanted to take the case….the court didn’t grant Cert. This came after Heller and he specifically states that the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment…

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

    That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

    1. avatar Cory C. says:

      Pssst. It was Thomas’ dissent. 🙂

      But still, very good point.

  7. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    And this is why the red flag laws are so dangerous. It’s not a stretch to think the Anti-American, Constitution hating, filthy, subhuman Liberal Terrorists™️ will equate AR15 ownership with being irrational and mentally ill. This is their way of legalizing back door confiscation.
    “It is no longer enough to be willing to fight and die to preserve our rights, one must be willing to kill for them, too”. IST

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I have not mentioned an incredibly important fact in a while which bears repeating:

      Progressives, in a desperate attempt to squash their political enemies, simply label their political enemies as stupid, crazy, and/or corrupt. (Credit: Ben Shapiro)

      Progressives do this because they have no arguments based in facts and truth. They also do this because it is efficient. Let me explain:
      (1) People are social and want to be an integral part of their community which includes their family, neighbors, friends, peers/coworkers, and countrymen.
      (2) People want to like the members of their community and want their community to like them because it feels good and strengthens their sense of community.
      (3) Of course your community will impose significant penalties on anyone who is stupid, crazy, and/or corrupt or anyone who is in league with a person who is stupid, crazy, and/or corrupt.
      (4) Thus, individuals feel significant pressure to NOT give their community any reason to think that they are stupid, crazy, and/or corrupt — nor that he/she is in league with anyone who is stupid, crazy, and/or corrupt.

      Since that is ingrained in everyone, all a Progressive has to do is passionately exclaim that a firearms enthusiast is stupid, crazy, and/or corrupt. They don’t even have to be right. Just the passionate exclamation indicates that anyone who disagrees is toying with the wrath of the community. And if the Progressive accuser actually manages to get someone thinking that the firearms enthusiast probably is stupid, crazy, and/or corrupt, all the better! Sadly, that only takes 60 seconds — just 60 seconds to gain another supporter. On the other hand, trying to explain and verify/prove the facts about something could take hours. But Progressives don’t want to spend an hour or more justifying their position. And they have no facts anyhow. So, they take the easy path which is preying on our psychological traits to manipulate/intimidate others into compliance.

      1. avatar ATTAGReader says:

        A clear and modern elucidation of the Big Lie Technique as promoted by all dictators throughout history.

      2. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

        Myron Pitts has his mind made up. Nothing that you say or show him will change his beliefs.

        “I do not support the unrestricted ownership of semiautomatic assault weapons by civilians,” [said Dean Winslow, a doctor and retired Air Force colonel].

        “No rational person would — unless it is someone with their own idiosyncratic attachment to the AR-15 or is a politician paid off by the National Rifle Association, the gun industry or some other lobbyist.”

        Mr. Pitts thinks that anyone that has no problems with AR 15s is a stooge or someone with no integrity, so he does not have to listen to anything that you have to say. In another words he has his fingers in his ears and is screaming “nanananana”. No arguments will penetrate his bullet proof bubble.
        Of coarse, any argument against the AR15 holds against every firearm, so I can assume that Mr. Pitts would like every firearm banned from civilian ownership. After all why would anyone ever need a gun to protect themselves in his universe?

    2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      Red Flag, Red Slag. No worries.
      Conservatives repeatedly tell us that those brave heroes in blue will never come to take our firearms. That we must worship those paragons of socialist virtue with the shiny LEO badges.

      Of course who you gonna believe? Them or your own lying eyes?

  8. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    One of the problems with this country is that for some reason people pay attention to obviously unresearched, uniformed and downright ignorant opinions.

    He seems to think that the AWB banned semi-automatic rifles, which it didn’t, it banned pistol grips when combined with any of a few other useless features like a lug for attaching a bayonet. And it restricted new magazines to the same capacity used in the Parkland shooting, although higher capacity ones were never hard to find. It did nothing to stop violent crime, in fact all it did was allow a bunch of demoncrats to pat themselves on the back before looking for new employment.

    1. avatar Ardent says:

      Well, it did cause me and a bunch of others to install 20 round fixed mags on SKSs and get really good at feeding them strippers. It also raised the value of 30 round STNAG and AK type mags. It made the M14/M1A1 more popular…crime reduction…not so much.

      1. avatar MyName says:

        Oh yes, the AWB years resulted in a whole ton of “tactical but not banned” rifles to come to prominence.

    2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      Remember Baby Bush said he would have gladly signed a new AWB if one had landed on his desk.

      Don’t trust the Republicans or the Democrats.

      Even better, don’t trust anyone of such low morals and suspect character that they take government employment.

  9. avatar Bob Jones says:

    Civilians need modern sporting rifles because our law enforcement is usually the “First To Flee” during any form of serious riot, mass mayhem or civil disobedience event.

    Persons without a high level of personal protection are likely doomed, as happened to many under-armed/un-armed during the Rodney King Riots. That event also had cases of rioters who were also members of the California National Guard. So much for trusting the government to protect you. Only an idiot would depend on our municipal or state police for protection.

  10. avatar Steve Eisenberg says:

    Gun-grabbers don’t realize that Grandpaw’s old deer rifle is much more powerful than an AR-15.

    1. avatar KenW says:

      They do, but under divide and concur rules you go for the bright shiny objects first. Fudds will stand by quietly while you take out those who would dare to own something that works semiautomatically and not made of wood and steel. They won’t complain when magazines are limited to 5 rounds, hey it’s been that way for years here for hunting. Later on after all the bright and shiny objects are confiscated or banned and they start taking what are then called sniper rifles the Fudds will be dumbfounded. We stood with you they will complain to the takers as their weapons are gathered and destroyed.
      You can’t go for all guns at the same time, unite the fudds and those they would allow the authorities to persecute and you have awakened a more potent foe. Split them up and they are easier to eleiminate.

      1. avatar MyName says:

        Some may be playing divide and conquer but there are plenty of folks out there who really have no idea what they are talking about. I’ve heard people say things like, “You can’t use an AR to hunt because it would blow up the deer.”, and other equally ridiculous statements about how powerful and deadly they are. When I show someone uninformed a 5.56 and a 30-06 and ask them which one they think goes in my AR, most guess wrong.

      2. avatar CZ Rider says:

        I think a lot of them know they’re just further down the list and are banking on being able to live out their lives before the antis get to them. As far as I’m concerned, the “I’ll be dead by then” argument is a sign of selfishness and cowardice, but apparently a lot of people are also shameless enough to just come right out with it.

        1. avatar rt66paul says:

          That may be true for many people, but I am more concerned about my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren’s safety, not to mention the generations that come later. If I had to give up my guns, so they could be assured of having them, I would. They are much more important than an old man with one foot in the grave.

  11. avatar HEGEMON says:

    “Conversation” equals Confiscation…

  12. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    The tripe written by Myron Pitts might be worthy of a full Fisking. So much specious and factually incorrect information, in so few column inches.

  13. avatar Kman says:

    I love it when personal opinion becomes a declaritive absoluo.
    I’ll give it a go…
    Anyone who owns a MOPAR is a moron
    Anyone who is gay is mentally ill
    All cops kill innocent minorities
    ICE agents are Nazis
    All illegal aliens are saints

    This is fun.

    1. avatar MyName says:

      You can have my HEMI when you pry it …

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Nobody’s coming for your Fiat.

        1. avatar MyName says:

          I want to score one of those blocky late 70’s Fiat logos to put on my Jeep.

        2. avatar LazrBeam says:

          A fiat accompli?

          To No Name, if your Jeep is a Cherokee put a photo of Elizabeth Warren on it.

        3. avatar LazrBeam says:

          Drat, I meant to MyName with the Cherokee comment.

        4. avatar MyName says:

          Ha!. It is a Cherokee (I say “it”, actually I have two). Not sure if my stomach would survive seeing Elizabeth Warren on a daily basis. Fiat Accompli is, however, a fantastic name for my next build – Thx.

  14. avatar Anonymous says:

    Specifically, the country should return to a 1990s ban on so-called “assault weapons” that U.S. Congress let expire in 2004, and which included the AR-15 and similar guns, as well as certain higher-capacity magazines. The time is ripe to have this discussion.

    The time is ripe for this discussion? We’ve already has this discussion in the 1990s. We decided to let it expire in 2004. That WAS the discussion.

    1. avatar MyName says:

      Exactly. Discussion, agreement, test case and evaluation – didn’t work. In most enterprises, after that process, the failed policy is dropped and other things are tried.

      Using motor oil to fertilize my yard didn’t work last year so this year I’ll use more and add some diesel fuel. Sounds about like the same logic.

      1. avatar Ardent says:

        It really went further than that. In 1994 I knew exactly 2 people who owned AR15s, this despite being an inveterate gun nut in an area where the majority own firearms, being a competition shooter, and being deeply involved in military style rifle collecting and shooting. By 2004 many people had them, including me (I bought a “pre-ban” Colt short light match grade in 1995). By 2014 it seemed everyone had one. If the AWB accomplished anything, it was to make the rifles and carbines on the list highly desirable and sought after. Such is the nature of (attempted) prohibition.

        Still more; despite the massive proliferation of these military style semi auto rifles during and after the AWB, they always and still make up such a tiny fraction of murder weapons that they are statistically insignificant.

        Anyone still seeking a ban needs to answer several pertinent questions including; why ban something virtually never used unlawfully, how do you reconcile an action that will increase proliferation of these weapons with a desire to ban them, and, given the numbers in private ownership, of what utility would a ban be? The biggest question to me by far though is the first: what is the point of attempting to ban weapons that are in essence never used criminally? This question is even more potent in light of the others…bans drive ownership and proliferation, and there are already 10s of millions of these rifles around. The only rationalization I can conceive for such a ban is either it comes from utter ignorance, or is a symbolic gesture. Either way, it makes for bad law and bad public policy.

        1. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

          Ask any antigun banner and their answer is:I do not care what your arguments are for supporting “assault weapons”, they scare me and must be banned!

  15. avatar Scooter says:

    So much bullsh… um, misinformation on their side.
    How to go about this?
    My Mini 14 uses the same round and uses 30 round magazines?
    Checking the stats the AR is NOT the mass shooters favorite?
    Most “identifiers” of so-called “assault weapons” are cosmetic or ergonomic?
    I’m a reasonable, rational, educated individual involved in my community through the BSA and my church, I’m a teacher, a husband, a father, and I own two AR platform rifles. A Windham and a Colt. And they are fun, reliable plinkers and make for a great day at our property with family and friends. More pews, more fun.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Scooter,

      I’m a reasonable, rational, educated individual

      STRIKE ONE! (in Progressive minds)

      I’m … involved in … [Boy Scouts of America] and my church
      </blockquote
      STRIKE TWO! (in Progressive minds)

      I’m a teacher, a husband, a father …

      STRIKE THREE, YOU’RE OUT! (in Progressive minds)

      All of those traits outright disqualifies your opinions and positions on all matters. Sorry Scooter.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Formatting error! (And all because I forgot to type a single > symbol.) Please disregard the previous comment which this website does not allow me to delete or correct!

        Scooter,

        I’m a reasonable, rational, educated individual

        STRIKE ONE! (in Progressive minds)

        I’m … involved in … [Boy Scouts of America] and my church

        STRIKE TWO! (in Progressive minds)

        I’m a teacher, a husband, a father …

        STRIKE THREE, YOU’RE OUT! (in Progressive minds)

        All of those traits outright disqualifies your opinions and positions on all matters. Sorry Scooter.

  16. avatar m. says:

    “assault” rifle is a lie-whore/politician construct, you f*ck*ng t**t. weapons are around so we can defend ourselves against useless commie d-rat d-suckers like you. former service-members who advocate gun control are traitors & nothing less. move to cuba, n. korea, uk, venezuela – see how safe you “feel” dipshit.

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      I think these terrorists underestimate how ferociously we will fight to DEFEND our birthright against their “War of Leftist Aggression”. Not only is a Civil/Restorative War likely, but if it occurs, the literal genocide of millions of Liberal Terrorists™️ is a certainty.

      1. avatar Ardent says:

        I don’t think we are quite there yet…but in the event of any confiscation or mandatory “buy back” , I believe a state of war would then exist between the people and the government. They are truly playing with fire.

    2. avatar Red in CO says:

      Actually, “assault rifle” if a legitimate classification of weapon, denoting a select fire rifle, fed from a detachable magazine and chambered in an intermediate cartridge.

      “Assault weapon” is the meaningless phrase that’s intentionally used to conflate the two, and it works. Even lots of hardcore gun people get it backwards

      1. avatar MyName says:

        You are, unfortunately, correct. There was a time when the usage of “assault rifle” and “assault weapon” were pretty clearly differentiated among the POTG but I have noticed that they are being increasingly conflated by all parties in the “debate”.

        1. avatar m. says:

          i take issue with anything used for defense being defined as an “assault” xxx. as with gender, goober-ment dips**ts will define anything to serve the commie ideology.

    3. avatar rt66paul says:

      One of the reasons these weapons are here is to defend ourselves from all who might hurt us, including those from the government, other criminals, and of course, commies and Nazis like Mr. Pitts and other civilian gun grabbers. Other reasons include that I can train with them, target shoot, hunt, make sculptures out of them, whatever I wish to do. Anyone that wishes to limit what I do with a firearm that doesn’t hurt anyone can just pound sand.

  17. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Just to be different, and because I can, I’m going to address his pet “Doctor and retired Air Force Colonel”. He is describing what is normally a man who took govt assistance to pay his way through med school in return for XX years of service as a AF doctor. This is not a “line” officer, meaning he does not outrank a captain who is an actual officer, the “colonel” is a pay grade, not a position of authority. In that same vein, he has zero military experience, probably entered service as a Lt Col rather than a 2/Lt. Has had zero instruction or experience in firearms, currently has no knowledge and is pulling his opinion right out of his ass. If I left you with any questions, just ask.

    1. avatar Red in CO says:

      That sounds about right. I’m reminded of “full semi auto” guy who clearly had absolutely no idea how to shoot a rifle in the infamous video (despite supposedly being a some high ranking military guy). Pretty sure you don’t hold the stock 3” away from your shoulder and lean way back

      1. avatar MyName says:

        What is it with the leaning back thing? About 2/3rds of the newbies I take to the range do this and it is really difficult to get them to lean into the gun. I would think that an instinctive understanding of physics would cause people to lean into something that is about to push them backwards but, apparently, not. This confuses me. I don’t know anyone who leans *forward* as they start to walk down a steep hill.

        1. avatar CZ Rider says:

          Instinctive physics are actually the problem. Ever seen someone lean back when they’re holding a heavy object in front of them? If you’re taking a basket full of laundry to go wash it, do you lean forward while holding it at chest level? Leaning back shifts their center of gravity back to a more normal-feeling position when they’re just standing there, which is fine for your typical inanimate object. It’s only when that object kicks them in the shoulder that they realize there’s more to their stance than instincts would indicate.

        2. avatar MyName says:

          Yeah, I suppose it is true that the effect of holding something out in front causes people to lean back but I’ve seen people do it with a pretty light handgun. Weight distribution shouldn’t be an issue with a 2 pound or less object – especially with instruction to the contrary. I’d note that, no one (o.k., virtually no one) leans backwards on a football field, or during a wrestling match, because they are anticipating someone coming toward them.

          If they were holding something unwieldy, with no instruction, I’d get it but they are holding something pretty ergonomic with instruction – I’m left confused. (I will allow that I might be a crappy instructor)

        3. avatar Napresto says:

          Fear and unfamiliarity have something to do with it too. As in, “I want to be further away from this heavy thing that is about to make a loud explosion right in front of my face.” It probably seems like a fairly rational position to take if you don’t know any better.

        4. avatar MyName says:

          But unless you have telescoping arms, leaning back doesn’t change the distance from the muzzle to your face it just makes you more likely to fall on your ass.

  18. avatar Andrew says:

    It seems a lot of military brass don’t understand the oath they took to uphold and defend the constitution. I figure the answer to this is to pass a law stating that any former military personnel who violate their oath shall have their discharge changed to dishonorable and lose their pension. See how many of them are willing to violate their oath with real consequences attached.

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      Andrew……Elected officials take a similar oath so it stands that they should be fired on the spot for conspiring to subvert our constitution and laws, thus being a treason type action.

      1. avatar Andrew says:

        I would happily apply the same type of punishments to those who would misuse their position of power to deny American citizens their inalienable rights. Instead of a dishonorable discharge, I would substitute immediate removal, inability to hold any government position in the future, and forfeiture of any and all pension and benefits packages. The reason they act as they do is there is no consequence for doing so.

  19. avatar Anonymous says:

    If you look above all the minor arguments you see the main theme, and the main argument pushed:

    Because we are a danger to ourselves, we need a nanny. And who is that nanny? The government.

    Textbook democrat. Is there a problem? Government is the solution. Always looking at the collective to solve your problem. Never looking at yourself.

    An old-school democrat once said something that modern democrats can’t fathom:
    “Ask not, what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

    Instead of begging for restrictions on your own freedom, why don’t you, each, individually, rise to the challenge of burdening the responsibility for those freedoms, by bettering yourself, your children, and seeking to act out in the world, your best understanding of the morality you possess.

  20. avatar MB says:

    These “Doctors” are very unlikely to ever see a real gunshot wound, never mind a gunshot wound from a AR. Facts are facts, more people are killed with hammers than all rifles combined, not just AR-15’s So in the liberal logic arena, ban all hammers, ball peen, claw, framing, sledge, etc….oh yea, ban fists and feet too. Idiots !

    1. avatar RA-15 says:

      MB , don’t forget baseball bats. America’s favorite pastime would make all Americans lunatics !! I wonder how many bats have been used to murder people.

  21. avatar possum says:

    Well hell, today I read I wasn’t rational. I haven’t even met that guy, I think he’s just envious of my big black gun.

  22. avatar MyName says:

    We had an “assault weapon” ban, it did nothing. Now you wanna try again?

    Do you go fishing in swimming pools too?

  23. avatar Imayeti says:

    People with little to no understanding of firearms have focused on “Assault Rifles”, ignorant of the fact that the term is as undefined as “The boogy man.” I find it frightening that people all have a knot in their knickers over imaginary demons when there are much more worthy dangers being ignored. Just my 2 bits worth.

  24. avatar Douglas Riggs says:

    No rational person actually believes that criminals follow gun control laws. There is nothing you can do with a gun to harm another person that isn’t already illegal. Anyone with intent to harm someone doesn’t care about violating some feel-good gun law in the process.

    1. avatar MyName says:

      “There is nothing you can do with a gun to harm another person that isn’t already illegal.”

      ^This!

      I say this to people all the time when they start whining about “high capacity” magazines or “assault weapons” or whatever other thing they want to ban or control. What on earth use is it to ban an object when the use of that object is already thoroughly circumscribed by law? Murder, armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon – these are all already more heavily punished than illegal gun possession so what utility is there in expanding the number of possession related laws?

      1. avatar rt66paul says:

        People like this think that anyone is capable of using a gun against another, so the gun must come out of the equation. These people think they would be safer against you without a gun – this is true prejudice!
        They also don’t take into account that a person with bad intention could come by and take you as well as them out.
        My mother was like that – no guns! no knives! no sticks! no slingshots!
        She was always afraid of what people might do, even people she knew all her life. Never made any sense to me.

        1. avatar MyName says:

          This fear of what “might” happen has always perplexed me (I hear you, my mother is similar). I understand fear of the unknown but, my response has always been to try to make the unknown, known. So, when I am unsure about the likelihood of some bad thing happening I try to find out how likely it actually is, or is not, to happen. As a result, though I will admit that I don’t enjoy air travel, I don’t fear it – because feelings aside, the probability of the plane I am on actually crashing is vanishingly small. Similarly, I don’t fear “gun crime” and I don’t fear earthquakes or avalanches because, simply, the probability of any of them harming me is remote. I understand that people fear what they don’t understand and can’t control but I don’t understand people who continue to fear, at least who continue to fear to the same degree as before, what has been clearly explained to them as a non-threat. I’ve had many people say to me something along the lines of, “You’re statistics don’t change how I feel.” Well, if that is the case, should I conclude that it is my statistics or your feelings that are incongruent with reality?

  25. avatar Enuf says:

    The 1994 AWB was the catalyst to all this. Americans do not behave as expected under a Prohibition law.

    The 1994 AWB arguably created the buying fervor in AR-15 rifles. Back then few people were all that interested. The gun had no wood, it still had a bad reputation from the early and incompetent roll-out in Vietnam (self-cleaning never needs oiling BS). The .223 Remington cartridge was seen as good for prairie dog shoots but too wimpy for deer.

    And then, politicians declared it to be something seriously bad that you weren’t allowed to have.

    So, naturally Americans do what Americans do when told they cannot have a thing. They get curious, they try to get one. At least to try it out and see what all the fuss is about.

    Since the 1994 AWB was incompetently written and did not actually ban the AR-15, manufacturers rapidly adapted and an entire new gun industry was born. People discovered it is actually a dependable, easy to shoot, customizable platform to all forms of shooting. Include the longer action of the AR-10 and these days you can have an AR in several dozen cartridges from .22LR to .30-06.

    Now untold millions have been sold. The gun is the best selling design that thousands of businesses make parts for. To rid the country of the AR today would require billions of dollars and taking them from many more citizens than all the police and military forces combined.

    Prohibition didn’t work with alcohol. Trying it on guns has only had the opposite effect, and will do so again if ever they manage to cook up another law like the last one.

  26. avatar Cloud says:

    The AR15 and it’s variants are the modern day muskets. This clown can be the first to volunteer to come and take them. Or he a f*K right off.

  27. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Myron Pitts, give me the one thing no one has yet given me; a philosophical reason why a populace should be disarmed.

    1. avatar MyName says:

      Don’t hold your breath.

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      This is something I have pondered for a while.

      The answer that I’ve come to is something I call “Social Mercantilism”. The Left definitely believes in the concept that the economic pie cannot be grown. If the US has a bigger slice then everyone else must have a smaller slice. The same is true of the rich. You can only make $50K/year because Jeff Bezos is hogging all the money.

      They seem to believe this about society as well. The more rights you have the less someone else has. Your logical argument is “hate speech” because it infringes on the “right” of others to feel differently. Your right to own a gun impinges upon someone else’s right to free speech because they don’t feel they can say what they want without fear of getting shot. Your right to the fruits of your labor harms the rights of others to get ahead in life etc etc.

      It might sound silly but it seems to fit with what they say and how they act.

      1. avatar MyName says:

        It does fit what they say but it blows me away when ‘they’ claim to be the smart, enlightened ones when they clearly can’t see that not everything is a zero sum game. See for example, John Nash. Or, if academic literature is not your thing, consider how the natural resources of the planet earth, while fundamentally unchanged for millions of years, have been used to support an ever increasing population. If, every time one person used one of said resources to improve their life, the lives of all others were limited by that use, then how did multiple peoples simultaneously improve their standard of living, and population, for centuries on end, using that same fixed set of resources. Who starved when that first guy figured out that spreading cow manure on his corn increased his harvest?

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          I didn’t say the over-arching philosophy makes sense because to me it doesn’t. I agree with your statements here completely. However, if the Left is viewed through a Mercantile-lens what they espouse makes a lot of sense if and only if you buy into the underlying premise of Mercantilistic thought.

          I’m not suggesting that we adopt a Mercantile point of view, I’m suggesting we use that pattern of thought as a schema to explain the actions/claims and philosophy of the Left on social topics.

          In that way it’s similar to religious philosophy in some regards. People like Abelard, Augustine and Aquinas make rock-solid arguments that, so far as I can tell, are almost impossible to refute on their own grounds. Those grounds are that you accept the Bible as the Word of God. If you don’t accept that underlying premise then it’s easy to ignore what they have to say. However, if you consider yourself a Christian it’s nearly impossible to deny the logic of their arguments even if you have a distaste for Catholic Dogma due to being a Protestant. The same is true with the Left.

          If you don’t consider yourself a Mercantilist and you reject that philosophy then their arguments are not something you can agree with. On the other hand if you were to agree with the theory of Mercantilism then the Left would have points you couldn’t refute because you would agree with the root concepts and overarching philosophy.

        2. avatar MyName says:

          Yes, I suppose there is utility in trying to understand the philosophical underpinnings of the left’s thought processes – if for no other reason than to shore up the foundations of opposing views – but I do find it tiresome to argue with people that seem to have a fundamentally incorrect view of reality. I know, I know, my view of “reality” is biased as well but, it does seem that my views are more aligned with the world as it is rather than the world as I wish it would be.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          I agree that it can get tiring and oh-so-repetitive. However, once you start to put their thought process into a schema you can pull a pretty slick move on them because you have a good idea what the answer is.

          Say to them “OK, now explain to me why you believe that. What is the underpinning logic that leads you to this conclusion”. In my experience this question will stop 99% of them dead in their tracks because they don’t know.

          They simply believe what they believe due to what al-Ghazali would have called “conformity”. They were brought up in a house without guns or discussion of civil rights so that’s their norm. Just like most children of Jewish, Christian or Muslim parents grow up to be Jewish, Christian or Muslim. There’s no particular thought behind it, merely an acceptance of “what is” with no thought of what could be.

          Also, your comment draws a very significant distinction in the way you think vs. the way they think which is key. It’s also something asking them to define their overarching philosophy, which as I said, most can’t do, at the same time you point this out will usually turn on a light bulb.

          You said “I know, I know, my view of “reality” is biased as well…“. This statement contains both an implicit and an explicit statement that you are not infallible. Their statements, generally, do not contain this admission. Point that out to them after asking them to define their philosophical underpinnings. Then point out that since they can’t define the root of their own opinions they cannot be confident that those opinions are correct since they don’t even know where they come from.

          Once they check their premise and are forced to admit that they don’t possess omniscience you will usually get one of two responses, an outburst of extreme anger or a look on their face of a mixture of sadness and resignation. Either way, the reaction means you know that you’ve just flicked a switch in their head and that may well lead them down what you and I consider the right road towards a support of civil rights for everyone.

          This doesn’t work with the most hardcore people but I find it’s a very, very effective way to argue with the vast, vast majority of people provided that you can explain your own philosophical foundation properly.

        4. avatar MyName says:

          “Then point out that since they can’t define the root of their own opinions they cannot be confident that those opinions are correct since they don’t even know where they come from.”

          This is a very insightful thought. One of the things that annoys me is people who claim some form of “their truth” without any apparent or stated basis for that “truth”. Pointing out to them that if they can’t articulate what they believe then they should not be confident in those beliefs is a good approach to leading them to question the validity of their assumptions. I’ll give it a shot, we’ll see how well my patience holds up. I’ll also have to double check my responses to potential questions about *my* philosophical justifications (though I try to do that anyway).

        5. avatar strych9 says:

          “I’ll also have to double check my responses to potential questions about *my* philosophical justifications (though I try to do that anyway).”

          Given that you don’t try to claim to know everything I suspect that you do more than just *try* to do this.

          That said, there’s no shame in hitting a point you haven’t thought out and saying “I’ll have to get back to you on that”. If more people did this there would be a lot less bullshit in the world.

          One thing I would stay away from though, regardless of your feelings on the subject, is religiously based reasons for your philosophy. It’s not that there’s anything wrong with religion informing your philosophy and in cases where people believe in a religion it’s impossible for it not to inform their philosophy, it’s just a sticky wicket.

          First, religious justification is not necessary and second this can be turned against you. Simple Leftists will simply say you’re a fool who believes in an imaginary friend and therefore can’t be trusted because you’re basically crazy. This wins over a lot of other fairly simple people. Smarter and better read Leftists will try to draw you into a religious philosophy debate that is off topic and, unless you’re quite well versed with religious philosophy, dangerous ground since the language used in religious philosophy is… difficult and therefore open to them lying about the meaning of statements or distorting the meaning through ignorance of the true meaning of the words being used. Just go read some Aquinas or Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna) on the meaning and makeup of the soul and how we can know if it’s real or not to see what I mean.

          For example, if I’m defending the right to use lethal force to defend myself or the right of self-defense in general I don’t use Biblical quotes even though I’m quite capable of doing so. First, I’m an agnostic so that wouldn’t be right for me to do. Secondly, as I said, it’s not necessary. Legal philosophers have given us this justification. It goes like this “Self defense including lethal force is justified in situations where a court is absolutely incapable of making you or someone else whole again. Loss of property can, theoretically, be ordered replaced by a court (or taken care of via insurance). Loss of a limb or, worse, your life or that of another is not a situation where a court can find someone guilty and order restitution that makes you whole again. The guilty party, found guilty and ordered to pay restitution, cannot ever replace your missing leg or bring you back to life. Therefore, in situations where an injury for which a court cannot possibly order full compensation is a reasonable fear then using force is justified to prevent the injury for which recompense is not possible.” This theory is exactly the theory behind the laws governing self-defense and has been for a very, very long time. It avoids any of the pitfalls of religion and is basically a rock-solid argument for which even a very well read Leftist will have no counter argument.

        6. avatar MyName says:

          “One thing I would stay away from though, regardless of your feelings on the subject, is religiously based reasons for your philosophy.”

          I agree. I am much more likely to philosophically defend my religious beliefs than I am to use religion to defend my philosophy. (I think Aquinas would likely approve)

          Also, your argument for the right to the use of force in self defense, given the impossibility of the victim being made whole via the court, is quite well stated.

    3. avatar CZ Rider says:

      “Guns are evil and scary because the news people told me so. My philosophy is that I should never have to experience fear ever for any reason and so guns must be removed. I’m far too weak and fearful to do it, though, so I’ll just whine and cry until the government does it for me, because the government always does good strong things that make me feel better.”

      You’ll probably get something like that, and then you’ll wish that you hadn’t asked. Also, I’m confident that guy (assuming he isn’t a concoction of some ad firm paid to influence public opinion) wouldn’t ever poke around a site like this. Far too icky for him.

  28. avatar Brewski says:

    Anyone putting forth the claim that the people (excluding the military or police) should be denied access to a class of weapon that would otherwise be a better force equalizer if the two (military / police) should ever come into conflict with the average citizen is advocating for a distinct force advantage for the military or police.

    Which, in turn, means a force advantage for the govt and state. That’s the opposite philosophy the founding fathers had for government. The federal government was originally designed to be overthrown by the people by force of arms should the people find it necessary. Hence why the people were just as well armed back in the day as the govt. Now one could argue that our military and police have far exceeded this idea of equality of force of arms since the days of the musket and the anti-gun movements that denied the people fully automatic weapon ownership.

    The recent arguments for civilian disarmament are so amateur.

  29. avatar ANG Pilot says:

    Although I monitor what extremists like Pitts say I’ve ceased trying to engage with them because they’re akin to a religious cult, nothing I can say or do will change their perspective. The Left has changed over my lifetime. They used to be all about weed, peace, love, and rock n roll. Now they believe with religious certitude that they are morally superior and are called to cleanse the United States so as to recreate our society and culture in conformity to their views on how things ought to be. Using violence, force, or coercion in the name of social justice isn’t a problem for them. Like the French revolutionaries or Communards or Bolsheviks or Maoists, the modern Left has no room for individuality; everything is subservient to the collective will.

    The Left these days constantly blathers on about “democracy” which in reality is mob rule. Your “rights” only extend as far as what the majority of your neighbors see fit for you to have.

    If you think any of your rights are protected by God, the Constitution, or the Courts think again. Pitts and his ilk will use the power of the government to confiscate your guns and kill you if you don’t comply.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      “The Left has changed over my lifetime. They used to be all about weed, peace, love, and rock n roll. Now they believe with religious certitude that they are morally superior and are called to cleanse the United States so as to recreate our society and culture in conformity to their views on how things ought to be.”

      They’ve always believed this even going back to the origins of the Modern Left in Britain during the 1880’s. They’ve been so certain of it that they opined that mass murder was an acceptable extension of politics.

      What’s changed is that they are now far more vocal and honest about what they believe because they’ve gained power. There are also a goodly number of them who believe that if they’re forced to kill you then it’s your fault. Back in the day they just kind of saw it as a part of doing business, today they justify it to themselves by blaming the victim.

      1. avatar MyName says:

        “There are also a goodly number of them who believe that if they’re forced to kill you then it’s your fault.”

        Scary but true. Kind of a Spanish Inquisition’ish’ view of the “other”. Admit that you are a heretic and we will kill you for your heresy, deny it and we will kill you for your obstinance.

      2. avatar rt66paul says:

        Many of those “leftist hippies” were actually civil libertarians. While I identified with these leftists, so did many VN Vets, as did many Americans who were discriminated against because of their race, national origin, even religious culture.
        While I did not own firearms then, I always respected others’ rights to do so, as did most of my peers. We were not anti-American, we wanted to be free in our our pursuit of happiness. We did what we could to make America what it was designed to be.
        Only then did the special interest groups get in and took us backwards with hiring quotas, unreal air and water quality laws that took our manufacturing away. Those groups along with Nixon gave the store away to Red China.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          I would argue that the hippies were not part of the Left, at least not as we know the Left today. The Left and hippies IMHO, and I think it’s fairly easy to demonstrate that this is true, never saw eye to eye. Hippies generally wanted to be left alone to do their own thing with others free to join them or to leave. So, yes, they were civil libertarians.

          The Left on the other hand, also known as Progressives, Socialists, Fabian Socialists or whatever other names you might like to use for them, have always had a serious authoritarian streak to their philosophy and a penchant for political violence. In some cases they softened their language to lure people to them or to allow themselves access to other groups but in essence they’ve always had a point of view that everything is zero-sum and that violence is not only acceptable but necessary to reach the society they deem to be perfectly just and right.

          I would also point out that the “hippie movement” was never monolithic the way the Left has been. Some hippies certainly had Communist and Socialist sympathies or thought that portions of Communism and Socialism were to be admired. However the hippies for the most part saw this as a voluntary association. Those that lived in communes thought it was great but had no particular desire to spread the commune to those who didn’t want that lifestyle. The Left wanted to force that lifestyle on everyone.

          Insofar as hippes were construed to be part of the Left I personally think that this occurred due to a reaction from those who saw them as new, strange and something to be apprehensive about combined with a Leftist “advertising campaign” that used hippies as a method to 1) soften the Left’s image (a hippie high on LSD handing out flowers as opposed to an armed KGB agent executing a “dissident”), 2) attempt to adsorb the hippies for enhanced political power and 3) infiltrate and control the hippie movement to a certain extent by helping with the “othering” of the movement so that they would feel more apprehension towards society at large and “be driven into the arms of the Left”.

  30. avatar anarchyst says:

    Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies. The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them. The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence. Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned. You see, anti-gunners want them all. They will chip away a little at a time until their goal of civilian disarmament is complete. They have an excuse for banning every firearm. Scoped bolt-action rifles are defined by anti-gunners as “sniper rifles” because they are “too accurate”. Magazine-fed weapons are suspect because of high (actually normal) magazine capacity. Handguns are suspect because they are “easily concealable”. The gun grabbers want them all and have made (flimsy and suspect) excuses for banning every type of firearm. They don’t care how long it takes. and will use incrementalism to their advantage.
    Friends, ALL firearms advocates must “hang together” and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.
    There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL…
    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face. Imagine the hue and cry if “reasonable” restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the “mainstream media”. The Second Amendment is clear–what part of “shall not be infringed” do politicians and the media not understand…of course, they understand full well…it’s part of their communist agenda…
    Even the NRA bears some responsibility for capitulation on matters concerning firearms. The NRA failed when it allowed the National Firearms Act of 1934 to stand without offering opposition, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the NICS “instant check” system, the “no new machine gun for civilians” ban in 1986, the so-called “assault weapons ban in 1994, and other infringements of the Second Amendment. Let’s face it. What better way to increase membership than to “allow” infringements to be enacted and then push for a new membership drive. Yes, the NRA has done good, but its spirit of “compromise” will only lead to one thing…confiscation.
    If the NRA is truly the premier “gun rights” organization, it must reject ALL compromise…

    1. avatar rt66paul says:

      There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL…

      How about there is no room for complacency among any Constitution or Bill of Rights supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL… ?

      All things being equal, the ACLU should take up 2nd amendment cases, like they do other BOR cases.

  31. avatar anarchyst says:

    The problem is, we have allowed the anti Second Amendment crowd to define the terms.
    A firearm is a tool which possess no evil intent on its own. Assigning intent to an inanimate object is the epitome of insanity. Demonizing a weapon on “looks alone” also marks the accuser as an unstable individual who is also insane. Call them out on their illogic and insanity.
    Another dirty tactic the anti-Second Amendment crowd uses exposes children to potential and actual harm by putting them in “gun-free zones”. These people care not one wit about children, but uses them for their own nefarious purposes.
    We need to TAKE BACK the argument…
    When the antis blame the firearm for the actions of a criminal, state that: “a firearm is an inanimate object, subject only to the intent of the user. Firearms ARE used to preserve life and make a 90 lb. woman equal to a 200 lb. criminal.
    When the antis attempt to justify their “gun free zones” counter their misguided argument with “you mean, criminal safety zones” or “victim disarmament zones”. State that “we protect our money, banks, politicians and celebrities, buildings and facilities with PEOPLE WITH GUNS, but protect our children with “gun-free zone” signs”.
    When the antis state that: “you don’t need and AR-15”, counter with, “Who are YOU to consider what I need?”
    When the antis criticize AR-15s in general, counter with: “you mean the most popular rifle of the day, useable by even the smallest, weakest person as a means of self-defense. Besides, AR-15s are FUN to shoot”. Offer to take them to the range and supply them with an AR-15, ammunition and range time. I have made many converts this way.
    When the antis state that: “You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt with”, counter with “AR-15s ARE used for hunting, but in many states, are prohibited from being used to take large game because they are underpowered”.
    When the antis state that: “AR-15s are high powered rifles”, correct them by stating that “AR-15s with the .223 or 5.56mm cartridge are considered medium-powered weapons–NOT “high-powered” by any means”.
    When the antis state that: “the Constitution was written during the time of muskets, and that the Second Amendment should only apply to “weapons of that time period”, state that: “by your logic, the First Amendment should not apply to modern-day telecommunications, internet, television, radio, public-address systems, books and newspapers produced on high-speed offset printing presses. Only “town-criers” and Benjamin Franklin type printing presses would be covered under the First Amendment”.
    When the antis state that “only law enforcement and government should possess firearms”, remind them of the latest school shooting, as well as Columbine, where “law enforcement” SAT ON THEIR HANDS while children were being murdered, afraid to challenge the shooter, despite being armed to the hilt. The government-run murderous sieges at Ruby Ridge and Waco are also good examples of government (mis)use of firearms.
    Gun-banners want ALL guns, even if they attempt to get them a little at a time, chipping away at the Second Amendment. Here are the “excuses” that the anti-gun crowd uses to “justify” their misguided position:
    Handguns–“too concealable”
    Rifles–“too accurate”
    Shotguns–“too deadly”
    The Second Amendment is the most “infringed” of any part of the Constitution.
    This tome can be used to counter any argument against any infringement of our Second Amendment.

  32. avatar M1Lou says:

    I found this video today from Hitchens. I think it nails the attitudes of these people. When you read their articles they truly believe that they are right and anyone who does not think like them is wrong. Additionally they are a bad person.

    1. avatar M1Lou says:

      This also popped up in my subscriptions today from Reason. It directly attacks this guy’s “argument”.

      https://youtu.be/WCmO_y-0YdY

  33. avatar Fully Involved says:

    There needs to be a well-researched article explaining the role the AR-15 (and other semi-automatic rifles) and 30-round “high-capacity” magazines have in civilian ownership. A civilian in a self-defense situation bears the responsibility of placing rounds on target (and nowhere else) in the most accurate manner possible, and an AR-15 is the best tool for this task.

    I have yet to see someone actually mention that:
    1) The AR-15 is much easier to accurately aim than a pistol, thereby increasing the chances of stopping a threat and decreasing the risk of collateral damage
    2) The AR-15 can more effectively dissipate the minimal recoil, allowing for faster follow up shots
    3) Semi-automatic rifles (such as the AR-15) are the only viable rifle for self-defense as bolt-action, lever-action and shotguns (pump, break-barrel, single shot) are intended for hunting and often are too slow to operate in a self defense situation (and, when chambered in certain calibers, significantly increase the chance of collateral damage as the round goes through its intended target and can injure or kill bystanders).
    4) the AR-15 is simple to operate and is a proven/reliable design

    30 round magazines are integral to the use of an AR-15 because:
    5) 5.56 rounds, while highly accurate and have the benefit of minimal recoil, require multiple shots to stop a threat if the target was hit anywhere other than the central nervous system (a fact the military knows all too well)
    6) A situation involving multiple attackers is extremely difficult to handle with a handgun alone but an AR-15 gives its user a much better chance of surviving

    I’m sure there are many other points worth mentioning but that’s all i can think of off the top of my head. Perhaps someone eloquent with extensive experience with the AR-15 in self-defense scenarios would be willing to write such an article.

    1. avatar MyName says:

      The problem with the ones who want to ban them is not that they don’t understand how you could use one for self defense it is that they don’t want you to be able to defend yourself. Calls for the banning of ARs, or pretty much anything else, like this one, are predicated on the flimsy notion that there is some kind of crime reduction possible if they are prohibited. Well, at most, ARs are involved in 400-500 (the approximate total of long gun homicides each year) homicides a year. That is less than 5% of homicides and represents less than 4 thousandths of a percent of privately held ARs. Even if they all disappeared tomorrow, there would be no impact on crime.

      While there are many uninformed antis who actually believe that ARs are extra-deadly and too powerful for mere mortals to wield, those in positions of power know that this is false just like they know that the impact of their banning on crime would be negligible to nonexistent. Given these, the only justification they could logically have to restrict the rights of the owners of the 99.99%+ of ARs (and other guns) that are not used in crime, is to fundamentally constrain the lives of those who are their political opponents. In other words, they don’t want you and I to have them whether they are good for self defense or not. They don’t want you to have an AR because they don’t like you and don’t want you to defend yourself. To put it bluntly, this guy Pitts and those like him think people like you and I are a problem that needs to be eliminated.

      If they know ARs are not a significant driver of crime and know that they are effective for personal defense and want to ban them anyway, what conclusion can one reach other than that the antis want to *decrease* people’s ability to defend themselves?

      1. avatar MB says:

        No your numbers are way off it’s 400 for all rifles AR-15 are a small portion of that stat, HERE > https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11.xls

        1. avatar MyName says:

          Thus my use of the phrase, “at most”.

      2. avatar Fully Involved says:

        @ My Name:
        I hear what you’re saying, but those individuals are not the intended target of the article I propose. I absolutely agree with you that there are anti-gunners that primarily want to ban guns as a vindictive and passive-aggressive political attack on gun owners (that “hit ’em where it hurts” mentality) with absolutely no regard for the lives they put at risk in doing so. Those people cannot be swayed with logical discussion as their motivation isn’t about the gun, it’s about hurting those on the right. The article wouldn’t be directed at those people.
        Rather, the article would try to explain the very real advantages of using an AR-15 for self-defense to politically-moderate individuals who are genuinely curious as to why anyone would need an AR-15. These are the people we need to win over. I’m sure there is a significant portion of people who claim to be anti-gun because they never heard a proper argument for guns (rather they just get inundated with how horrible they are by the mainstream media). Often the only argument for the AR-15 they hear is “because it’s muh right” or “Nobody needs an AR-15, huh? Well nobody needs a whiny bitch yet here you are”. Those are shit rebuttals and do nothing to defend our rights, on the contrary it only solidifies the notion that AR-15s are unnecessary.
        I’ve used some of the points above in conversations with anti-gunners and successfully made them realize the importance of the AR-15 (and other semi-automatic rifles) in personal defense and public/country defense. Coupled with your point on how little they are used in crimes, I think the right person could come up with a very compelling argument for the AR-15.

        1. avatar Fully Involved says:

          Addendum:
          Another shit argument I hear for the AR-15 is that it’s “fun”. This only paints the picture that gun rights solely exists to support a hobby. We really need to stop saying this. Gun ownership isn’t just a hobby (although it can be), rather at its core it is a serious matter of life-or-death and one that we cannot afford to sacrifice.

        2. avatar MyName says:

          @ Fully Involved

          Valid points vis-a-vis the moderates who are only hearing hyperbole from the ends of the spectrum. I must admit that I am a bit jaded when it comes to how well people can be swayed by facts, figures and sound arguments. I state the facts and formulate meaningful arguments for people all the time and they either can’t be bothered to digest the data, determine that they prefer to make decisions based upon their gut instincts rather than take the time and effort to review a reasoned position, or are hostile to any argument that they perceive takes momentum away from their preferred narrative. There is so much misinformation out there about guns, gun owners, crime and self-defense (not to mention a great many other things) that even a well reasoned and presented argument has a ‘signal-to-noise-ratio’ problem.

        3. avatar Fully Involved says:

          @ My Name:
          I share your frustration brother. You’d think in this day-and-age solid facts would trump everything else, but as you’ve stated that’s not the case. Honestly, if you can’t build rapport with the person you’re trying to convince prior to delivering your argument, don’t even bother with the discussion as it will be a tremendous waste your of time and energy. This is why it’s often impossible to have a productive discussion in an online forum or comment section.
          What works for me (if you care to read on) is speaking with someone in-person after they’ve had the opportunity to judge my character (almost like how a dog needs to sniff you before it will allow you to pet it). Then I open the floor by asking their opinion on a matter (ex: gun control) while being amiable and/or agreeable and showing them that I find value in their opinion (feigning it if absolutely necessary). Then I state brief key facts in a matter-of-fact or “It’s funny you mention that, but actually…” manner. We might go casually back-and-forth, but as long as I don’t come off as hostile or directly trying to correct them, people are usually pretty receptive. If the conversation remains airy, simple and not emotionally charged, I’ll usually leave a lasting effect on their opinion or, if they don’t agree with me right away, they’d leave the conversation with their brain’s cogwheels still be turning in my favor (I know this to be true because they admit this in follow-up conversations 😛 ).

        4. avatar MyName says:

          @ Fully Involved

          You are probably better at “walking a mile in his shoes” than I am. I get pretty frustrated trying to discuss the “risks” of wide spread gun ownership when talking to someone who is eating a hot dog, drinking a beer and smoking a cigarette. (Not that I am above dogs, booze and t’bacy, quite the contrary) I admit that I am a somewhat unusually quantitative fellow but, even a fraction of my “just the facts, ma’am” approach would seemingly alter the conversation quite a lot. The simple truth is, and this is what I say to people all the time, you are not going to be shot so quit worrying about all the people with guns. Those people are almost entirely shooting at paper and water bottles and old washing machines and the occasional deer, not you. Relax and leave them the hell alone.

      3. avatar strych9 says:

        “To put it bluntly, this guy Pitts and those like him think people like you and I are a problem that needs to be eliminated.

        If they know ARs are not a significant driver of crime and know that they are effective for personal defense and want to ban them anyway, what conclusion can one reach other than that the antis want to *decrease* people’s ability to defend themselves?”

        I reach an entirely different but potentially much more disturbing conclusion. Bear with me here for a second, this takes a bit to get out cogently. Also note this doesn’t apply to soccer moms who haven’t really thought things through or members of the public easily fleeced by gun-control advocates.

        I don’t think it’s a reflection of the idea that they don’t want you to defend yourself. That’s just a bonus feature. I think it’s a reflection of the way that they think and I think that this reflection leads to some pretty darn scary conclusions.

        It’s my opinion that when certain people accuse the hard-Left of “projection” they are correct but they probably don’t realize why this statement is correct.

        We have certain reactions to things we understand and other reactions to things we don’t understand. We also tend to assume that other people think like we do. Our ability to empathize is key in this when looking at these gun control proposals and trying to understand why the proposals, useless as they obviously are, are taken so seriously by Leftists.

        Part of that is empathy. Consider the hypothetical: We have two people who killed 20 other people, both of whom used and AR to do the killing and both of whom are clearly the ones who did the killing, no question, they did it. One person was defending his home/family from a gang of methed out gang members. The other shot up a mall or a school.

        Normal people understand and can empathize with the person defending his home/family. It’s an terrible but understandable situation. They can, in their own mind, justify the person’s actions because they can see themselves doing the same thing in a similar situation.

        Normal people however cannot even begin to wrap their head around the guy who killed 20 innocent people at a mall or a school. People he probably didn’t even know. Regular folks cannot put themselves in his position, they can’t understand why anyone would do this. After a pause caused by some cognitive dissonance they come to the conclusion that the guy must have something wrong with him: he’s crazy. He must be different, something must be wrong with him because no rational human being would do this.

        Now, consider something else; group dynamics and defense of others. (Oh, this example is gonna get real unpopular real fast.) Osama Bin Laden didn’t start his life as a mass-murdering fuckhead. He started as a very smart engineer. Eventually, due to an attack on his group (Muslims) by an outside group that threatened a portion of the world’s Muslim population he went to Afghanistan to fight the Soviet invasion.

        At this point no one, other than the Russians, probably thinks Bin Laden is a bad guy. He’s just involved in justifiable defense of his group who are under threat of death from another group. Legit. However, at some point Bin Laden loses his mind and decides that the very existence of the Western World and the Muslim World’s knowledge of our existence somehow constitutes a threat worthy of violence just as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan did. Now he’s a crazy asshole.

        Combine these two points with the notion that rights are limited in such a way that more rights for one means less rights for another, think about the group dynamics and then think about that mass shooter shooting innocent people.

        If, in your mind, you can come to the conclusion that someone else’s rights are under a serious enough threat to justify violence then you can excuse that violence as we excuse the guy who defended his home. Directing that violence, just like Bin Laden, only needs to be at the “hostile” group as a whole. In other words, you’ve found a justification for killing large numbers of people that don’t even know you exist and whom you don’t know because you’ve convinced yourself that they’re a threat. If the threat is real this is probably justified but if the threat is based on your imagination… well, you’re crazy AND dangerous.

        You now have justification for a mass shooting. A room full of NRA members for example. Sure, you don’t know them, they’ve never personally wronged you or, for that matter anyone that you know of but as a group they constitute a threat to your group so violence is acceptable.

        In other words, the reason that smart (the folks at the top not the followers) gun-controllers think banning a gun like the AR is necessary because mass shootings are something that they can wrap their head around. While you and I recoil in horror at a mass shooting gun-controllers are thinking that they can see themselves doing the same thing just to a different group of people. The idea of shooting a group of innocent and effectively random people isn’t crazy to them. They’re willing to do it for political motivations because their political opposition won’t let them do what they want. In that way they empathize with a mass shooter, understand the batshit crazy logic behind a mass shooting and, because of human nature, assume that everyone else thinks like they do. Therefore, we’re all dangerous and we have to take away the AR-15 because shooting random people is something anyone can justify and do.

        Sorry for the length of that post.

  34. avatar NORDNEG says:

    This Pitts guy needs to stop talking crap about the civilian version of the AR, full auto’s have selectors on them & can’t be owned without a permit, & that Winslow guy , the retired Air Force colonel who happens to be a doctor, nothing new here, I don’t know one doctor who likes guns anyway,, anyone who’s been in the military knows about 90 day wonders,

  35. avatar Icabod says:

    The Assault Weapons Ban ran for 10 years then expired. It wasn’t extended because it had no significant impact on gun violence. Otherwise, Mr. Pitts would be citing statistics showing how great it was. What Mr. Pitts omits is the reality that the wrongly named “assault rifles” are used only in an extremely small number of crimes. Handguns are used 19 times more often then long guns (shotguns, hunting rifles, semi automatics) and kill more people. In fact, “The FBI’s reporting shows that 11,004 of the 15,070 murders in 2016 were committed with firearms.” That’s all murders. The number by all types of rifles? That’s 378. More people (656) died by hands and feet. More people 472) died from hammers and clubs. Finally knives accounted for 1,604 homicides.
    The sad reality is that criminals do not obey the law.
    https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls

  36. avatar Random_Commenter says:

    The writer: Columnist Myron B. Pitts, writes for the Fayetteville Observer. This city is “danger close” to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and is a military installation of the United States Army and is the largest military installation in the world with more than 50,000 active duty personnel. It is safe to say the almost the entire town owes it well-being to Fort Bragg and the US Army Special Ops Training Center.

    I am glad the writer is comfortable using 1A right to let us know of his opinion of our 2A rights. To make a case that “no rational person” should own an AR is silly, especially the number lawfully owned ARs, including a small subset of owners who undergone a BC to get one.

    Thanks for letting me know how you “feel” about one of the most popular rifle platform in this country.

    Please propose a plan on how to “take back” all ARs in circulation, since you know what is best for us. To prevent anxiety, please do not google “80% lowers”, “ghost guns” or “zip gun”. Thanks.

    (Insert sarcasm tag here)

  37. avatar FB says:

    Dean Winslow is a democrat, end of story.
    Regardless of someones career background, if they are democrat, they are part of the same totalitarian agenda. Unfortunately, we have a lot of traitors among us.

  38. avatar DaveL says:

    If millions of people had bought AR-15s in the past 15 years, and not one of them was rational, I think the current situation would look very different from the way it does.

  39. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    They really don’t want the previous assault weapon ban anymore. Too lax. The author doesn’t realize you could still get ARs and AKs new from the store, just without scary flash hiders and bayonet lugs, only two scary features.

    The new bans are far more restrictive, so you can’t equate the two.

  40. avatar MGD says:

    “Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at the University of Texas in San Antonio, told the same media outlet in December that the speed at which the AR-15 and similar guns project bullets make them more deadly. The projectiles are more likely to break apart, too, causing even more harm.
    “If they strike an organ, you’re more likely to have severe injury and bleeding and dying than with lower muzzle-velocity munitions,” said Jenkins, who likes guns himself and owns an AR-15.”

    Yes, my .30 06 tickles deer to death when I shoot them with it. The .30 06 gently massages organs and bones lulling those hit by them to slip away quietly with out a mark on them whatsoever.

    I feel dumber just having read what Moron Pitts wrote.

  41. avatar Ralph says:

    Myron is truly the Pitts.

  42. avatar strych9 says:

    So if you disagree you’re nuts or a shill.

    Subtle.

  43. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    I think calling people nuts for a policy opinion counts as hate speech.

    Can we de-interweb The Pitts, there?

  44. avatar Anymouse says:

    No rational person would oppose executing Myron B. Pitts for treason — unless it is someone with their own idiosyncratic attachment to the disarming innocent victims or is a politician paid off by the Bloomberg, Soros or some other lobbyist.

    1. avatar MyName says:

      I like the cut of your jib.

  45. avatar Joatmon says:

    Dear Mr. Pitts,
    I’m holding up a finger, guess which one?

  46. avatar Specialist38 says:

    I see many poster on here that erroneously lump all people who are not tacticool into the Fudd category.

    This is folly.

    I don’t currently own an AR nor do I plan to. I don’t wear a plate carrier when I go out each day nor when I go to the range.

    I support the rights of other to do so. I was fighting for gun rights when many on here were shitting yellow at the mothers teat. I support individual rights for weapons and self defense.

    If you think all people have to be a champion of open carrying an AR to the movies, you are a feckless idiot. When I see TACTICOOL GROUPS of people with armor and ARs, they become the focus of my attention. I view them as a threat until I know different. I don’t want to be “occupied” by any group.

    History tells us that groups of “regulators” rarely have individual rights in mind.

    1. avatar CZ Rider says:

      Speaking of folly, what makes you think the entire “tacticool” crowd wears their plate carriers in daily life? For that matter, what makes you think an AR owner is necessarily in the “tacticool” crowd? The design is almost as old as a lot of Fudds are.

      I agree that seeing a bunch of people kitted up and milling about would put me on alert, but at the end of the day it’s pretty much the 2A equivalent of a pride parade. They’re here, they’re geared, and you have nothing to fear. It’ll probably generate the same sort of response, too – shock and indignation at first, followed by gradual indifference and acceptance. Maybe we all just need to start being more “out” about gun ownership and get louder about the hateful bigots that want to shame us out of existence too. After all, it’s all about free expression and being yourself, right?

      1. avatar Specialist38 says:

        I guess Tacticool Wannabe is the diametric opposite of a Fudd designation.

        You’re right. Most wouldn’t wear that daily, so when they go stand around a strip mall it draws attention from all sides. Non gunners and gunner alike.

        If I walked into a restaurant or Walmart with my hand in a firing grip on my holstered carry, it would draw unwanted attention and rightly so.

        This is my thinking when I see someone with single point AR with their hand on the grip. The are looking a target. Doesn’t matter if it’s LEO, citizen, or military. Since I know I did not hire them to protect me, they are suspect.

        Open carry is not my thing but does not bother me when I see it. Open carry with a rifle poses new problems in everyday life. If it’s slung in front, many seem to rest their hand on the grip from what I have seen.

  47. avatar Phil LA says:

    Or a deplorable.

  48. avatar TX223 says:

    Liberals simply understand the AR-15 is “The right arm of free America”.
    In its current evolution, It’s probably the best small arm in the world.

  49. avatar fayettnam_trooper says:

    Having been born on Fort Bragg, retired from the US Army at said installation, now contracting on said installation for 15+ years, and frequently reading Mr. Pitts’ column in the Fayetteville Observer, I can say, without opposition, Byron is a typical left-leaning liberal. Personally, he’s a nice guy, quite sociable. Professionally, he doesn’t understand his audience as Fayetteville is made up of somewhere on the order of 75% former military and fairly conservative in their 2A views. He is merely a pundit, a product of his liberal college education, and not a reporter (nor product) of the community he purports to serve. I, and the countless thousands who have sacrificed to preserve his ability to express HIS opinion, welcome his perspective, Misguided, un-researched, and outright flawed, as his view often is, we allow him his voice in our community. We do that for the one time or two he makes a point we have no argument against. We allow it in consideration of the minority opinion that we may have failed to consider. And it has happened in the past where his view has made many of us reconsider. Reconsider the ramifications of our conservative views on those who have a lesser voice, but no lesser a right to the American ideals of equal opportunity and justice for all that we fought for. Unfortunately, on THIS subject, Mr Pitts’ view endangers EVERYONE in our community by undermining the (for now) “constitutionally protected” INALIENABLE rights of EVERYONE in said community.
    ~ Keep your feet and knees together, and may fair weather find you always

    1. avatar MyName says:

      “fayettenam” been a while since I heard that term.

  50. avatar Enuf says:

    The intent of the Founders was for the people to have arms of common utility to any standing army. They were perfectly aware that technology constantly improves. The Continental Congress tried to buy experimental repeating flintlock rifles, designs for which had been around for a long time before the Revolutionary War.

    If this were not true, the Second Amendment would say something silly such as

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear antiquated Arms inferior to those of all standing armies who wish to subject the People to slaughter and tyranny with ease and minimal loss of life to the tyrant, shall not be infringed.”

    Pretty sure those additional words are not there for a reason. If they were, the Second Amendment would protect our right to own matchlock muskets and little more.

  51. avatar GS650G says:

    I didn’t realize our rights were subject to tests and scrutiny by strangers.

  52. avatar DaveDetroit says:

    All firearms should be legal. Even fully automatic and yes, even true « assault rifles ». Only their misuse should be punished. No gun is capable of committing a crime. Any delivery truck is capable of more mass violence than any gun carried by infantry.

    It is clear that Dems don’t care about violence per se- they encourage violence against the unborn, illegal immigrants, political opponents and those exercising their 1st amendment rights in opposition to them. Leave a child in the car to run into a store and they’ll lock you up. Drop a beautiful 9 year old girl at the border to be raped or sold into as a sex slave and you’re their hero.

  53. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    No true Scotsman logical fallacy. Nothing more needs to be said in response to the idiocy of that article.

  54. avatar MyName says:

    “Then point out that since they can’t define the root of their own opinions they cannot be confident that those opinions are correct since they don’t even know where they come from.”

    This is a very insightful thought. One of the things that annoys me is people who claim some form of “their truth” without any apparent or stated basis for that “truth”. Pointing out to them that if they can’t articulate what they believe then they should not be confident in those beliefs is a good approach to leading them to question the validity of their assumptions. I’ll give it a shot, we’ll see how well my patience holds up. I’ll also have to double check my responses to potential questions about *my* philosophical justifications (though I try to do that anyway).

    1. avatar MyName says:

      Aw, crap, that was supposed to be a response to Strych9 way up above. Can’t edit or delete so I’ll cut and paste in thread where I intended.

  55. avatar Founder says:

    Dean Winslow and all Democrats should self deport(Try Mexico,Central-South America,Venezuela u love so much) (Wall Needed 4 sure) asap or face treason with death penalty their choice. The Founders would not believe our 22,000 illegal gun laws!
    The Founders would have a Massive 50 State hanging party!

    No care how u feel or 4 ur opinion stupid!

    I have a right to own what ever arm(gun) is the best to defend my family from what ever threat i feel necessary including a horde of communist! Yes we should have machine guns and suppressors to save our and our children’s ears!

    This republic was formed for asshole communist like u who can’t change our Unalienable Rights! This is not a Democracy! This is a republic with rule of law that ur not allowed to change or vote on 4 a good reason!

  56. avatar Chris Morton says:

    No rational person gives a damn what Myron Pitts thinks… about ANYTHING.

  57. avatar piper says:

    Doctors, like Dean Winslow, kill 300,000 Americans every year. AR’s used by murderers average less than 50!

  58. Alcohol kills more people than AR–15s. Should it be banned?

  59. avatar L says:

    I completely agree…no one needs a single AR…

    … 2 AR’s are the bare minimum. 😉

  60. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Pits is an uneducated idiot. North Carolina is were Robert F Williams, “Negroes With Guns” author, used military rifles for self-defense against white racist attacks. He got them from the NRA for his negro gun club that was affiliated with the NRA. Back then the NRA mailed you guns, long and short, plus the ammo, to your home address.

  61. avatar Ronno says:

    I seem to recall buying a couple “assault weapons” in the 90’s there was a never a ban. Idiots.

  62. avatar burley says:

    No True Scotsman would perpetrate such a logical fallacy!

  63. avatar PeterK says:

    Ugh. You people need to get over this. It’s a 60 year old design. It’s well on its way to being an antique.

    You’re never going to make it evil just by whining about it. So just stop.

  64. avatar Robert Witmer says:

    The problem with his opinion some will say that his military service gives him credibility, too bad, sadly his military job as an Airforce Doctor says more than words…how many times did you see a doctor at the range in the military?….I was in over twenty years and I rarely saw a Flight Surgeon Fly….so why anyone would listen to a military Doctor talk about weapons astounds me.

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