By Chris Hernandez
I have a message for my pro-2nd Amendment friends: guys, we don’t have to pretend our ARs aren’t military weapons. One topic central to the gun control debate is whether or not AR-type rifles are “weapons of war” with no purpose in civilian hands. The anti-gun side points out the obvious similarities between an AR-15 and an M-16, and insists citizens have no right or reason to own either one. Gun rights advocates stress an AR’s inability to fire on full automatic and insist that makes them wholly unsuitable for military service . . .
In my experience, the anti-gun side typically engages in more snarky, insulting rhetoric than the pro-gun side does. Gun control advocates call gun owners stupid, say we’re all paranoid, and accuse us of being violent hicks (or even worse, say we own guns to compensate for our [gasp!] small penises). But that reverses when the question of whether or not “assault rifles” are military weapons arises. Then we gun owners become the snarky, insulting ones.
Last week I watched an interview with a gun rights advocate on Fox News. He insisted that an AR has almost nothing in common with a military rifle because it’s not fully automatic. He laughed at Megyn Kelly’s suggestion that they were almost the same, and claimed nobody he knew in the military would ever carry an AR in combat.
I call BS on that one. I carried a semiauto-only M14 in Afghanistan as my primary weapon. I’ve fired my personal AR in a military marksmanship and close quarters combat competition, against other shooters with issued M4 carbines. I’ve trained with my personal AR at close and medium range targets, against moving targets and against multiple targets. The entire reason I bought an AR was because it’s a military weapon. I wanted to train with almost the same weapon I might carry in combat. If I was downrange and armed with my personal AR instead of an issued weapon, I wouldn’t feel the least bit uncomfortable with it.
When someone says, “But the AR isn’t fully automatic,” I respond, “So what?” In a rifle, full auto fire has limited tactical worth. It’s not often that we fire our weapons on burst (currently issued M16s and M4s fire 3 round burst, not full auto) because it’s inaccurate and burns a lot of ammo. We emphasize carefully aimed fire, not “spray and pray” like the Taliban. We often make fun of our enemies, and sometimes our allies, because of their tendency to dump rounds on full auto every time they pull a trigger. A fully automatic rifle certainly can be a useful tool, but isn’t a drop-dead necessity in combat. And among poorly supplied fighters, it quickly depletes meager stocks of ammo.
As far as I’m concerned, ARs are for all practical purposes military weapons. But before any of my gun-rights brothers accuse me of betraying the cause, let me follow up with this statement: there’s nothing wrong with the fact that they’re military weapons. It’s a good thing.
Despite what the Huffington Post or Mother Jones publishes, the 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting or sport shooting. It’s about the citizens’ right to resist tyranny. About 5 seconds of Googling turns up this quote, among many others, on Wikipedia:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” -Noah Webster (writing under the nom de plume of “A Citizen of America”), An Examination Into the Leading Principles of the Constitution (October 17, 1787)
Noah Webster and his fellow founding fathers wanted us to be armed in order to resist government tyranny should the need arise. Therefore, it follows that we have the right to possess weapons capable of resisting tyrannical government forces. An AR gives the citizen that capability.
Anti-gun people typically say at this point, “You think you can fight the government? Well then you’d have to own tanks, airplanes, machine guns and nuclear bombs. If you just had rifles, you wouldn’t have a chance.”
No we don’t need to own tanks, fighter planes and nuclear weapons, and yes we would have a chance. Insurgents who are often armed only with AKs have been giving us a pretty good fight for more than ten years. Even with our overwhelming air and indirect fire assets, we haven’t rolled over the Taliban. They operate among the population, travel light, strike quickly and melt away, just like rebels in America would. Air strikes and artillery don’t do much good if you can’t figure out where to put them.
Those who insist Americans armed only with rifles would be helpless against a professional military consistently ignore the lengths our military goes to in order to avoid civilian casualties. Whenever someone in the anti-gun camp insists our military would respond to a single rifle shot with a brutal onslaught of weaponry, I remind them we don’t even do that overseas. I’ve been in a couple of firefights where the Taliban were shooting from houses, and we couldn’t use supporting arms to hit those houses. In Afghanistan, and here, killing civilians only strengthens resistance against us. We tried to avoid killing civilians from another culture in another country, so why does anyone think our military wouldn’t care about civilian casualties in America?
Besides that, rebels or insurgents in any conflict don’t always have to win. Sometimes they just have to delay or inhibit government forces. Sometimes they only have to make a point.
I’ve read a lot of comments and articles from the anti-gun side, and I’m fairly certain the next comment coming from many of their mouths is, “This guy is a paranoid psycho who thinks the government is coming for his guns.” No, I’m not. As a cop, I know better than most how impossible that would be. I don’t accuse the current administration of tyranny and have never referred to our President as a tyrant. A review of my blog posts will prove that. I think many on the pro-gun side are too quick to throw out words like “dictatorship”. Our government is far from becoming a dictatorship.
An unknown, very intelligent man said we can resist tyranny with the soap box, ballot box and ammo box. We’re nowhere near the ammo box, and I can’t see us reaching for it for in my lifetime. But I understand the Bill of Rights wasn’t written only for the 1700s, or only the 1800s, or 1900s, or 2013. It was written to address immutable human nature. Noah Webster and his friends knew that once humans have power, there is always a danger that they’ll abuse or illegally expand that power.
“Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” -Tench Coxe, Federal Gazette, June 18,1789, A friend of James Madison, writing in support of the Madison’s first draft of the Bill of Rights
We Americans have a right and duty to resist tyranny, should it arise. We keep military weapons in order prevent our government from becoming tyrannical, and to fight back if it does. Those who wish to remove military weapons from our hands, on the pretext that “you don’t need them for hunting or home defense”, are woefully ignorant of the basis for the 2nd Amendment. Or more likely, they think the 2nd Amendment is stupid and obsolete, and maybe even wish for total gun confiscations but know better than to admit it publicly. Either way, they’re no friend to our freedom.
If someone angrily tells one of my pro-2nd Amendment friends that an AR is a “weapon of war”, I’d ask them to proudly respond, “You’re damn right it is.” When law-abiding, sensible citizens buy and shoot ARs and AKs, they’re not presenting a threat to the public or to the government. They’re exercising their rights exactly as Noah Webster and Tenche Cox hoped they would.
That’s not something we should be ashamed of.
This post originally appeared at chrishernandezauthor.com and is reprinted here with permission. Chris is an active law enforcement officer in Texas who splits his time between military and police work. He’s also the author of Proof of Our Resolve.
Scopes may or may not be “sporting” depending on your own definition, but they are certainly more humane than iron sights. When properly calibrated, and zeroed, they allow a trained hunter to kill the targeted animal quickly, with a single shot, limiting the animal’s suffering.
+1, very well said. scopes= humane kills
I believe the unknown man was Frederick Douglas, a variant of his actual quote:
A man’s rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
-Frederick Douglass in a speech delivered on November 15, 1867
Sure the AR is a weapon of war. So were the muskets some gun grabbers say are the only arms the Second Amendment applies to. If it applies to one weapon of war, why can’t it apply to others?
The most popular hunting rifle for the last 100 years started life as a weapon of war — the bolt action rifle.
The Home Defense Rifle
We’ve all heard the AR-15 called by different names. Some of them we like, some we don’t.
Modern Sporting Rifle doesn’t really work for people who don’t hunt or compete. Patrol Rifle might be fine for the tacticool crowd. Grabbers prefer the term Assault Weapon. And if we’re feel like mocking the grabbers we might call them Scary Black Rifles. The list goes on…
My point is that none of these terms really seem to resonate. They don’t describe the purpose of many rifles and they sure don’t catch the attention of your average fence-sitting Joe (or Jane). Instead, it’s time to call them what they are:
Home Defense Rifle.
My Home Defense Rifle (HDR) is patterned after the rifles used by our military. It also is similar to the defensive rifles used by many police departments. But it has been de-tuned for safe use by average people who may not have had advanced training.
Unlike the fully automatic, short-barreled rifles used by our military and police, the HDR only fires one bullet each time the trigger is pulled. It also must have a barrel of at least 16″ unless the owner has special permission from the federal government to have one shorter. Because of these changes the HDR is suitable for private ownership and use.
The HDR has other uses, including hunting and varmint control. It makes a great sporting rifle. Unfortunately the HDR, like many tools, also has been used for criminal purposes. This is not the fault of the HDR. Criminals use and abuse knives, bats, shovels, cars and all sorts of other everyday items. The fault is with the criminal, not the tool.
HDRs are accurate rifles that deliver minimal recoil after firing. This means there is a lower likelihood of firing bullets where they are not intended. It also means the person pulling the trigger can more quickly return to aiming at the target after each shot. HDRs can be customized by the owner to provide the exact fit and features needed. The result is a versatile tool that is ideally suited for home defense.
Many people choose to have an HDR in their home. In fact, there are over 3 million HDRs in the U.S. But its primary use, for me, is in defense of self, family and home.
Oh, damn, that was good. 🙂
Nothing more to be said. Excellent, without being paranoid or doom prepper fetishist. Just common sense, logic and historical facts.
My biggest gripe is the gun grabber screed of “We have to take Weapons of War off the street”.
It implies that these weapons can only be used for killing and also that they are commonly used for criminal purposes.
While the AR-15, like many firearms, has a military origin it has been adapted for other uses.
Despite some very high profile shootings, it is rarely employed in crime.
I hate the liberal screed about a “weapon of war” because it is an effective emotional appeal to non-gun owners that make it look as though there is no legitimate purpose to own an AR-15. That emotional appeal is what we need to counter because I think gun rights advocates underestimate how effective it is.
“I hate the liberal screed about a “weapon of war” because it is an effective emotional appeal to non-gun owners that make it look as though there is no legitimate purpose to own an AR-15.”
The point of this entire post is that the fact that it is a weapon of war is the most legitimate reason for citizens to own one.
Well spoken. And, Mr. Hernandez, thank you for your service to our country & your apparent love & attendant respect for the Constitution.
“…because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”
At the risk of playing into Ivy Mike’s line of reasoning, which has been very quiet lately, this was because back then they didn’t believe in a standing army. I’m not so sure this clause would be true anymore. Could regular citizens hassle the hell out of our military, if it was turned against us? Could it be a serious thorn in their sides? Sure. But I don’t believe you could any longer make the statement “a force superior to any bands of regular troops” with any legitimacy.
I respectfully disagree, Matt in FL. If you figure roughly 80 million gun owners, and just a quarter of that, it would far outnumber the military, most of whom when I served wouldn’t be eager to fight their own countrymen. Besides, remember when the Iraqi insurgents were too much for our military, at least according to the media, when the media was trying to help lose the war? Now they make a different calculation to suit a new argument.
But the weapons of the 2nd Amendment are certainly weapons of a well regulated militia, and therefore military, and therefore weapons of war. The antis’ real problem with guns is the free state they ensure.
Matt, unless the regulars are willing to level American cities, the same cities they were raised in and have families in, we citizens can raise hell with them. I was a regular as were many TTAG people. We were not raised in the Hitler youth, we were part of those communities.
In the unlikely event of an American civil war fully half or more of the people in uniform would either defect to our side or work from the inside to negate the effectiveness of the military. If you don’t think military people can go on “strike” you’ve never been in a unit afflicted with poor leadership and morale. There’s lots of ways to take a unit off line without winding up in a ucmj moment.
I suppose that’s a good point.
The catch is that the ‘weapon of war’ rhetoric is part of the disinformation campaign to paint the AR15 as a ‘machinegun.’ Many, if not most, people think that it is.
The AR15 isn’t a weapon of war, but it’s the closest thing we have.
http://www.grumpypundit.com/2013/01/defending-the-indefensible/
Pretty good writeup from the grumpy pundit. I posted it in facebook for all of my only cops should have guns friends.
“Weapon of War” is a purely semantic term with no concrete meaning. Any weapon, whatever it might be, that is used in war is by definition a “Weapon of War”. Clubs, axes, swords, fists, rocks, you name it. Weapons are defined by their immediate use, not by their looks, nor past or future use.
So, in a sense ALL WEAPONS, can at one time or another be labeled a “Weapon of War” See how silly this all is?
If I use a gun to prevent a violent act without having to fire a shot, can I call it a “Weapon of Peace”?
“……A place to START”?!?!?
What does this guy do for an encore except lock up and then kill all former gun owners?
In a holocaust survivor, this is nothing less than certifiable insanity.
Well said!
I agree with this post. In the past Foghorn had written about how today’s hunting rifles are yesterday’s military rifles. And that the AR is simply a modern rifle with many compelling features that make it good for certain types of hunting.
While I don’t disagree with Foghorn on premise, it just comes off as trying to make an excuse for why we want to own an AR. Nobody on the anti-gun side is going to even understand that line of reasoning and it puts us on the defensive. I don’t think we need to make excuses so I agree much more with Zimmerman on this.
As Michael Bane has pointed out many times, firearms technology was invented as technology of war. It happens to have uses to the non-military population. The genie was let out of the bottle 1000 years ago.
The argument over military/non-military to me is meaningless. It would be like arguing over the proper use of a sharpened blade. Is it a bayonet/killing machine or a tool for Chef Morimoto? Neither, it is a sharpened piece of metal. The full auto vs. semi argument is a legal one. If this were back in 1929 you could buy either at the hardware store. It is law that now makes the artificial distinction. Human nature and language makes it easy to get sucked into this tet-a-tet.
There can be an endless set of semantic barriers set up by those afraid of liberated people.
Bigger than .50 cal? – it can shoot down aeroplanes
How about speed of the projectile? – it can penetrate body armor
How about an energy level (heck IDPA has power levels right)? – it can go right thru a house
How about length of barrel (oh we have that already LOL)? – its either a sniper rifle or its too concealable
How about how much plastic is in the unit? – its undetectable
How about the price of the gun? – its a Saturday nite special
How about the chemical content of bullet? – did you know the ATF actually DOES regulate this? Only so much copper, tin etc – its dangerous to the environment or armor piercing
Finally I’ll suggest that if we dig our heels in on semi’s expect the other side to come up with a cyclic rate distinction. – there needs to be a “pause” between shots cause otherwise its “like” full auto
and on, and on, and on……
It is a losing battle to engage in such semantic sword fights. The only words that matter are “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.
I am hard pressed to think of many types of firearms that weren’t used as weapons of war at some point in time. Over-under shotguns, maybe? Just about every firearm has been used in war, even ‘lowly’ .22lr guns.
Help me out here. Can anyone who knows more about historical guns than I do name a class of firearms not used in war in an official capacity?
Great story!!!
We need more of these. We have to get these type stories out there to the public.
Knowing them, they will probable make the “argument” that “No one needs a gun, just learn Kung-Fu and you will be fine!”
Excellent article!
I like it. This needs to be on network tv.
Bill of Rights trumps foolish opinions.
Beautiful! Bet they have a hard time buying space on any national network shows other than Fox.
And the next ad by SAF should point out that the original “reasonable gun control laws” in America were passed in the South right after the Civil War, and were specifically designed to make it impossible for the recently-freed blacks to keep and bear arms. The racist roots of gun control continue under the big-city mayors, many of whom are white “liberals” (NYC, Chicago, etc.).
I like the screen text at the end, “Self defense is a human right”. It’s not enough to talk about the second amendment, because the leftists just say ‘well it can be repealed’ and people without a strong opinion figure they’re right, if it’s that big a deal we’ll just amend the Constitution. You can’t amend human rights.
Other than the bit about the NRA being formed to protect newly freed slaves and a couple other nitpicky things, on the whole this was great to see.
Ugh….its started off well, but it was all down hill from there. All this says to me is that black folks live in the city and hick white folks carry their guns where ever they want. There is a novel’s worth that can be said just about the family in Chicago, why muddy the waters (see what I did there?) and then start reciting the 2nd amendment?
Make it racial, because it is. Poor urban communities, which happen to be predominantly black, are more at risk for violence and criminal behavior but are typically highly restrictive when it comes to guns. Why are they less entitled to self protection than someone in a suburban or rural community?
Socialists have been erroding God and guns in this country for at least half a century. If now is not the time to fight back then when?
Hey Nick,
Just found this site. Great conversations and lots of good info from your contributors. I shoot mostly .223/5.56 (Bushmaster Varminter w/24″ fluted barrel, comp 2-stage trigger, 6-18 Leupold VXII w/Factory target turrets), .308 (One competition and one hunting), .270 and 10/22. I handload for all but 10/22 which has a 16 inch bull-barrel, target trigger, Hogue stock (floated barrel) and a red-dot (great fun and cheap to shoot). All the hi-power guns shoot extremely well (.270 and .308’s are well under an inch) with Varminter having a best group to date of 6 shots into .29 inches at 100 yds w/sandbags off the bench . Great fun on “dogs” at 200-300 yds!
Now that I’ve found your site, I’ll be back. Jim
I dislike the term “weapon of war” as much as I loathe “assault weapon” and other propaganda terms created by the gun grabbers. I think “battle implement” would be a more accurate term.
I also like the “you just want the AR to kill people”. Yeah, most are just itchin to pick off elderly ladies with canes. The ones that deserve it? well, I’ve mentioned that a few times, Randy
Come on, everyone knows you’re supposed to keep your important papers/life savings in the oven and your bullets in the fridge.
Why would anyone actually use tracer ammo, even cold tracers, at an indoor (short distance) range?
As an OFWG, I am delighted to see that there may soon be OFBG’s joining the ranks. I especially like the YFWG’s, YFBG’s, YFWW, YFBW, and their slim counterparts joining. Let’s not forget that we need guys like Robert who is a MAWG, because they have the energy, smarts, money and talent to help defend the 2nd Amendment.
I’m not old or fat yet, but I’m working on it.
This shit’s getting out of hand, but perhaps the silver lining is that they’re being more open about it.
I Sh8t you not: DHS-Funded Drone Spies On Private Gun Sale
We are officially occupied by ENEMIES of the American Constitutional Republic.
If this isn’t an open sign of trajectory of ubiquitous police state to the traditional FUDDs, don’t know WTF will wake ’em up, at this juncture in history.
EXCELLENT! Finally, a major firearms manufacturer…and by luck the one that supplies our military issue sidearm…being effected by the gun grabbers. Come south my friends, come south…
Si vis pacem, para bellum is a Latin adage translated as, “If you wish for peace, prepare for war” (usually interpreted as meaning peace through strength—a strong society being less likely to be attacked by enemies).
Quoted from the Wikipedia article.
I personally consider this concept to scale perfectly from applying to the policies of nation-states all the way down to the individual right of self-defense. It clearly expresses my desire for peace and to avoid the use of force, balanced with my willingness and well-regulated ability to use force in opposing those who would consider assaulting me, my family, my community, or my country.
Another old fascist PIG. RF quit giving them the speaker here.
The Local Indoor Rifle Range I go to inspects ALL rifle ammo. No steel core, no tracers etc. Handgun ammo though is pretty much not inspected.
I am extremely jealous MAC….this is soooo your fault.
Same thing at a local range in Norwalk a couple of years ago, but the fire was not that big. Under new management – the shop and pistol range are open again. Rifle range is still under renovation, but when it does re-open I expect that they will be keeping a very close grip on ammo selection.
I do recall some fun grass fires in Wainwright, Dundurn and Shiloh from 7.62 tracer. Still not as bad as burning down a couple of acres of pacific temperate rainforest due to errant paraflares (so glad I was not NCOIC on that one).
well this didn’t take long to make it to wikipedia…
WANT WANT WANT WANT WANT.
What about California? Guys… Seriously. Cut off LAPD, and watch the policies change… We have some of the most draconian laws because of DiFi’s insanity.
A little help here…
I just bought one of these rifles and am considering putting an Aimpoint H-1 Micro on it using a standard mount. I’m wondering in the picture above if the Aimpoint sits low enough on the Picatinny rail to achieve one-third co-witness with the irons. Kind of hard to tell in that photo.
Anyone know?
Good stuff.
Looking back on the past couple-to-three years as I’ve taught my kids how to shoot (and retaught myself, recalling what I learned 25 years ago in Boy Scouts), I guess I did it mostly right. At least, my son loves shooting and goes with me almost every weekend. My daughter has had a couple of fun outings and learned the bare basics, but just isn’t as interested, so we leave it at that; an open invitation, but no pressure.
I started them off with two safety rules: point the gun in a safe direction and keep your finger away from the trigger. The rest of the rules came up naturally as they were learning to use the guns.
We started with rifles, not pistols — a Marlin model 60 semiauto and Henry lever-action .22. At first I did the loading and handling, and I talked them through the process as I went. Then I had them tell me what to do next (while I did it) until they had it down, and then they got to hold the rifle and we talked the process through as they did it themselves. They both take pride in doing it themselves and doing it safely. When we’re out shooting, we all keep tabs on each other (did you check for empty? safety on? okay…).
They both have keepsake targets. My daughter keeps the first pop can she ever shot right next to her Littlest Pet Shop toys on her bookshelf. My son prominently displays a 30-30 casing that he plugged with his Henry .22 to win a $5 bet with me. Ah, good times.
I don’t know when the original solicitation came out, nor did I read the PWS or RFP,,,but does FN build all components (barrels, bolts, BCG, receivers, firing pins, etc..) in house? Are they depending on sub-contractors for components? I’m guessing this $9.3M award is for 11,000+ units. Not a lot of “M4/AR” components available right now. Makes me wonder if FN can fulfill it’s deadline obligations…but still excited for the folks in the SC plant…
In terms of network security, we measure risk of a network intrusion, or penetration (i.e., being “hacked”), the same way that Nick describes here.
I found two things missing in his analysis though, and I’m really curious what he thinks about this or what others think. It is this…
First, the misguided knee-jerk reaction of some in government and many equally ignorant civilians/voters is a gun ban or an “Assault Weapons” Ban (AWB). The idea of such a ban wouldn’t last ten seconds without a false belief or assumption that it would actually work. There is NO historical precedent to point to that would indicate that any kind of ban reduces gun violence. Their minds just calculate if no legal “Assault Weapons”, then no mass murders. To anyone who would argue or disagree with me here, I would point to this note on another truthaboutguns.com article:
“NOTE: There have been only two murders ever committed with a legally owned fully automatic machine gun, one by a police officer in 1988 and the other in 1994. No murders have been committed since then.”
(Source here: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/10/foghorn/the-truth-about-assault-weapons-and-assault-weapons-bans)
The second is the political capital gained by those like the President and Senator Feinstein who posture and position themselves as gun banners DESPITE their galactic ignorance, because in times following a massacre, this is a hot button issue with many voters and campaign contributors. Remember the Alinsky motto unbelievably actually said out loud by the current mayor of a city with the most restrictive or some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation, but has among the highest rates of gun violence, Rahm Emanuel:
“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
Things like getting a new and more expansive gun ban passed into law…
I hope there is a hotter corner of hell for those who would exploit the grief and fear of WE THE PEOPLE in the aftermath of a massacre in order to further their own totalitarian anti-gun political agenda.
At the peak, I would say that there were at least 500 people present. They were enthusiastic and well-mannered–and mad! Here are my pictures, which certainly give the lie to the sparse crowd shown in the featured photograph:
http://sdrv.ms/Yon9eS
At the very least, the people–and the judges–who will be dealing with these proposed laws know that a strong backlash is forming
This is the exact reply I got from one of our illustrious county commissioners when I wrote all of them regarding pending legislation that would make it illegal to carry a firearm in a county park. The legislation passed, so I stay out of county parks here. But I did reply to his condescending email – “Dear commissioner x, You are everything I have come to expect from my elected representatives, which is NOTHING.”.
We need to fire asshats like this from their positions of authoritah.
When the military and police and politician’s bodyguards have only semi-auto with ten round mags, or 7, or 3, then I’ll accept that a semi-auto-only clone is a weapon of war.
When we can have fully auto and ManPADS and anti-armor and short shotguns without special government permission or waiving 4th amendment rights when a Fed comes knocking, then what we have can be called military-grade or useful to a military.