In theory, they should be banned or heavily regulated.
The reality, they are something people will have to get used to living with. “Black Lives matter”, The “peaceful protests”, and the defund the police movement have pretty much killed any chance of regulating firearms. That’s ironic since the “Black Lives Matter” movement and defunding the police require having a strong system of firearms regulation to have even a shred of being successful.
That’s because people need to feel safe and secure, which is something I think most gun regulators miss. The belief that “no one needs a firearm like that” rings hollow when the police start disappearing from the streets. My “I Almost bought an AR” post was about this since the reportage if one was fortunate enough to be away from the action could cause some people to want to head to the nearest gun store and buy one.
I think some people are unaware of the situation in this country and how difficult it will be to persuade people they don’t need an assault rifle. Not to mention that I am beginning to believe most of the people on the regulation side are not really good at listening to the other side.
OK, despite what many people may think: I HAVE listened to the arguments. And examined them carefully. That goes for both sides.
Right now, the “gun grabbers” are losing the propaganda battle…badly. The result of which is that they are beginning to lose the battle.
They are also alienating people who should be on their side by living in a highly idealistic world, I still stick by my belief that:
While I support keeping guns out of the hands of people like criminals and the looters, it is thoroughly insane to prevent the law abiding to their safety. And for the most part I am sceptical of firearms for home defence, I can get why some people would want them.
The problem is that one can’t tolerate the “peaceful protests” and defunding the police, yet expect people to be willing to give up on what they see as their best defence.
They say that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged: we may see a lot of people become “conservative” in the coming days.
At this point in time, firearms regulation is going to be one of the last things that will happen.
There isn’t a consensus on what exactly that firearm would be. I’ve learned more than I have ever cared to know about the AR-15 in the past month or so. The AR15 definitely qualifies since it was designed by an American, Eugene Stoner. Enough of them are out there in the US that any chance of an “assault rifle ban” would be really difficult. And that’s even with a buyback.
I feel the same way I do about the AR15 that I do about Margaret Thatcher: I don’t like either of them, but I respect what they are in relation to their respective country’s culture. The AR15 is probably more symbolic toward US culture than Margaret Thatcher will ever be to Britain’s.
It is a symbol of militarism since it was designed over 60 years ago for the US military, with variants used by military forces worldwide. Part of its attraction is that it is the civilian version of the US military’s weapon. And its deadliness is one of its attractive features. It is proven in combat and mass shootings.
The AR15 platform allows for it to be built in a myriad of different ways. It is also fairly easy to build with various kits being sold; from complete upper and lower receiver assemblies to the parts for making a ghost gun. Although, ghost gun means a firearm made “80%” lower receiver and parts. It is the AR15’s ability to be built by anyone which should cause people to pause.
I personally would not want to invest the time and effort into making an actual ghost gun. Complete stripped lower receivers are also available, which is the lower receiver block without the parts. That allows someone to create their custom gun. It’s easy to customise a completed lower receiver as well. Just look up a video on how to do that mod to your gun.
And there are the AR15 pistols as well, which I am mentioning since there is the debate as to how often these weapons are used in crime:
Given the amount of variations on the AR15, there are a fair amount of pistol versions. One manufacturer lists barrel lengths from 8 inches to 20 inches for their upper receiver assembly. An interesting riff on all this since Orlando, Florida, authorities revised their initial description of one of the weapons used in the June 2016 attack at Pulse nightclub. After initially describing it as an “AR-15-type assault rifle,” police said it was a different type of firearm, the Sig Sauer MCX.
One the the variants of the MCX is the Rattler SBR (short barrelled rifle)[1]. While SBRs are NFA weapons, it’s pretty easy to bang one up using the AR15 platform. I would also toss in that semi-auto pistols that accept high capacity magazines are banned in some places. Additionally, a submachinegun is a machinegun that fires pistol calibre ammunition. That means that submachineguns are basically pistols that can have a very high rate of fire.
But the main reason I would say that the AR15 is America’s gun is that it will probably never be regulated despite the carnage it is capable of causing. Despite the deadly shooting in Las Vegas to the 20 toddlers killed at Sandy Hook, these weapons are more than freely available to anyone who wants one. You can buy an 80% receiver with no background check to build whatever version of an AR15 you want.
That means that anyone who is adept with metalworking tools, or just adept with tools if it’s a polymer 80, can crank out a weapon intended for the battlefield.
That should cause you to pause and think no matter what your opinion of these weapons happens to be.
[1] Short barrelled rifles are another topic which I am not going to get into.
Well, we are being treated to an even BIGGER turn out to protest. Toss in that there is a threat of explosions at least at Philadelphia’s demonstrations.
And I went down to the demonstration
To get my fair share of abuse
Singing, “We’re gonna vent our frustration
If we don’t we’re gonna blow a fifty-amp fuse”
Anyway, the gun people should be laughing their asses off that the do-gooders are doing one of the best jobs to pump up gun sales. A few months back, it looked like there was a saturated market in Assault Rifles. Now demand for the suckers has driven up the price better than the executive order of 1989! Although Assault rifles and firearms tend to have a high rate of price fluctuation depending on the political climate.
That said, I did have a few options if I didn’t want to wait in a long line only to be disappointed at the slim pickings; even in the high end department.
Ghost or parts guns. Which is kind of a big category since you can have a parts gun from a upper receiver from one company and a lower from another. There are some SIG516 uppers out there which now are in the four figure range, after a period when Sig was practically giving them away (about US$450 range). Stick that on a lower receiver, Such as Palmetto State Armoury, which is a reasonable price. It has a serial number which means it isn’t a real “ghost gun”.
The other advantage is that putting together a complete upper from one company and a complete lower from another is still like putting together an assembled firearm. Unlike a ghost gun which is a bunch of parts and sound like way more work than I want to be bothered with. Toss in that I wouldn’t trust a gun I built from scratch since I’m not a trained gunsmith. Any “advantages” to a “ghost gun” are far outweighed by the possibility of it blowing up in my face.
Bottom line, I would buy an H&K MR556 or a SIG516 right now, but it is real hard to do.
Once again, the market place helps to control firearms.
I guess the H&K MR556 or SIG516 are AR-15 variants.
So, number one deterrent was price. The SIG is the less expensive of the two, but still in the four figure range. We are talking a price of US$ 1400+. Ouch. Toss in that I am leaning toward the H&K compared to the Sig.
And that’s the price if you can find one.
Assault Rifles and guns in general are a hot commodity these days. For good reason given the chaos of the past week. Some people have seen it on TV. Other people have lived it.
And people want to protect themselves. And what better way than with a weapon that was designed for the battlefield and proven in mass shootings across the country. Las Vegas was a good advertisement. The chaos of the past week are the perfect advertisement for a weapon like this.
I may not like it, but it is hard to say that people shouldn’t be able to own these weapons when the cities are under siege. That makes me different from a lot of people on the left, but I am also much more pragmatic than a lot of people on the left.
Those are the ones who are moaning about the militarisation of the police, like this article in the Guardian. But it misses something that this post is pointing out. Civilians can buy the 5.56 Assault Rifle with no problem. Shouldn’t the cops be as well armed as the civilians if they are going to keep the peace?
Defunding, said activist Jeralynn Blueford, is the logical response from leaders in this moment of unprecedented unrest. “If police had been serious about reform and policy change, then guess what? People would not be this angry.”
What The Fuck? Serious What the Fuck?
We have seen chaos and looting in US cities over the past week. Gun stores have lines that wrap around the block as people scramble to buy weapons to defend their homes.
While I support keeping guns out of the hands of people like criminals and the looters, it is thoroughly insane to prevent the law abiding to their safety. And for the most part I am sceptical of firearms for home defence, I can get why some people would want them.
It’s the image in this Tommy Gun ad from the days when they were freely available. The ability to protect your home against marauding bands of evil doers.
And the do gooders (I can’t really say the left since there are some of us who get what needs to be done) who would defund the police and try to make assault rifles illegal. The argument that “no one needs one of these in a civilian world” rings hollow these days.
The chaos of the past week ISN’T the civilian world and toleration of those who are destroying US cities is wrong. It’s turning the “silence is consent” argument back at them. Even worse, it’s not silence, but outright appeasement.
Black Lives Matters lost any relevance the moment the fires and violence broke out. They could have salvaged their effort if they stood down and denounced the violence. But allowing violence on either side is wrong.
I don’t really like that I have to accept that assault rifles are an undeniable fact of US life, but there needs to be some feeling of safety and security until people stand down: especially the rioters and looters. Violence isn’t the answer. Especially if you are not the body authorised by law to keep the peace. Breaking the law really isn’t the answer.
It’s really fun watching people defend the rioters and looters in the current situation. I’m going to use Pennsylvania law, but there is Title 18, Article F, Chapter 55: Riot, Disorderly Conduct and Related Offenses, which means that the destruction and looting caused by the rioters is illegal.
No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Trashing stores and stealing the contents is not a political act, but a criminal one.
Let’s add in that not only is it a criminal act, but it is actual violence. As I said to one person being able to understand the rioters would also mean that you understand why people are protesting the Covid-19 lockdowns with guns. As they say, they may not agree with the method, but they understand the frustration.
Actually, I find the armed protesters less of a threat than I do an out of control mob who are actually engaged in violent acts. Arson is a major cause of loss of life and injury in commercial properties. Strangely, the people who somehow find that the rioting and looting are justified have an issue with people exercising their right to self-defence.
Rioting, looting, arson, and the other illegal acts mentioned in Title 18, the crimes code, and specifically Title 18, Article F, Chapter 55, are just that crimes and illegal. On the other hand someone does have the right to self-defence if they have a reasonable belief that are in danger of death or serious bodily injury. Which happens to be a very real threat if you are in the sights of rioters.
One person said, “couldn’t you get out of their way, or leave town?” Is that a fair question if you get the lockdown order and AREN’T allowed to leave? Someone in that situation is pretty much stuck.
Which gets to the gun rights type’s question: “shouldn’t the person be allowed to defend themselves?” To which “Fuck, yeah!” seems to be the most sensible answer. And if the best weapon happens to be something semi-auto that can accept a large capacity magazine: then they should indeed be allowed to have such a weapon.
Which is why I titled this the way I did.
The person who somehow feels that the violence is “justified” or “understandable” should also be able to accept that people have a right to protect themselves. And the right which is lawful is the one of self-protection.
Not rioting.
Or as Donald Trump said: “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.“
While I don’t like Trump or the underlying events which led to the protests, the movement to violence has changed the game to a no win situation. And the people who are going to be the big losers are the ones the protests were supposed to help.
Likewise, I have made it clear that I don’t support “gun rights” or believe it to be a real thing, but if people are going to condone violence, then they need to accept that the cycle of violence will continue.
And isn’t ending the violence what the protests were trying to do?
You can condemn the violence, yet still support the underlying cause. If anything, it makes far more sense to condemn the violence instead of allowing the cycle of violence to keep rolling on.
Yeah, I guess this would be a surprise post from someone who is “anti-gun”, but you might be surprised at how much some of us know about guns.
Anyway, my personal vote is for the MAT-49 which comes from Manufacture Nationale d’Armes de Tulle (MAT) armoury for use by the French Army and the fact that it was first produced in 1949. Forgotten arms has a great video on the MAT-49.
The reason I like the gun is that it is one of the more unusual guns out there in that the magazine well folds up to the body. There are only two guns I know that do this the Hotchkiss Universal and the MAT-49: both of which were in competition to be France’s submachinegun in the post-war period. That said it has connections to Vietnam and Algeria.
Although, I would be less inclined to want one for reenacting Vietnam. The French were using other countries weapons: especially early in the war. An M1 Carbine works just as well. An M1 carbine can also be used for Algeria, but the MAT-49 was standard issue for the French military by that time. Although, the gun was being used by French Paratroops: especially at Dien Bien Phu.
Let’s toss in that the MAT-49 retooled for the Tokarev round was used by the Vietnamese (as were 9mm versions).
Still, this gun is expensive as heck in the US, while one can pick up a deact/neutralisé MAT49 no problems! And the deact is a fraction of the price of the parts kits I’ve seen for sale in the US. There are few options for replicas in the states since I’ve seen movie prop resin versions sell out at a 4 figure price! Relics UK sells a wooden version which works for prop or display use.
The problem is that the action is what makes this gun so interesting. Toss in its popularity among collectors (these things are really pricey if you want one that WORKS!). They were designed for full-auto, so I’m not sure how easy it would be to make a semi-auto version.
I’m putting this here as a guide to the missing pieces for the upper.
I’m surprised Denix hasn’t made one yet. I’m pretty sure they would sell. Especially since deacts aren’t legal in the US. And Deacts are getting harder to get in Europe.
I know I’m not alone in my interest in this weapon since doing a search on the MAT-49 will turn up a lot of material. Maybe we are just a small community out there.
BTW, if you have a parts kit that is missing pieces, the best place to get them is naturabuy.fr. Unfortunately, it takes knowledge of French to be able to buy there. Also, the people with the best prices usually don’t ship outside France.
Some vocabulary if you want to try shopping there:
Guidon=front sight
Oeilleton=rear sight
ressort=spring
verrou de crosse=stock locking pin
Carte bleu=Visa (the best way to pay outside of France). And yes, there is a difference between Visa and MC in France.
This is all very simple since according to people who claim to believe in Originalism, “Constitutional interpretation should remain anchored in the original meaning of the Constitution’s text, which is the source of the Court’s authority and legitimacy.” Using that definition:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The text of the Second Amendment begins with “A well regulated Militia” which is “necessary to the security of a free State“. The language of the text does not mention Self-defence, hunting, target practise, or any other non-militia uses. It is a well established rule or statutory interpretation that inclusio unius est exclusio alterius which means that ‘including one excludes another’. The example given where I found this was the statement ‘no dogs allowed’ under this rule would mean that panthers were allowed.
Likewise, the fact that the Militia is specifically referenced would lead one to conclude that this text addresses the militia, but does not cover uses other than the militia.
Likewise, a search of the US Constitution shows that it addresses the militia, but personal defence is not addressed. Likewise, the preamble of the text makes it clear that one of the reasons for adopting the Constitution is to deal with matters of the common defence. However, there are people who claim to follow originalism who are willing to ignore the actual text of the Constitution to advance their beliefs.
The actual wording of the Constitution makes it clear that the Militia and Common defence are covered, but personal uses of weapons aren’t. I am not going to get into the grammar of the Second Amendment since that isn’t really germane if one is going solely upon the text. Anyway, Dennis Baron addresses that issue in his amicus brief to the Heller decision and this essay where he demonstrates that the founders would indeed have seen this as only relating to the militia.
Reading the Second Amendment as a statement in which every word counts follows from the opinion articulated by Chief Justice John Marshall: “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect” (Marbury v. Madison, 1803). But even without that landmark ruling, it would have been clear to 18 th -century readers that the first part of the Second Amendment was bound to the second part in a cause-and- effect relationship, that the right to bear arms was tied by the framers directly to the need for a well-regulated militia.
The Second Amendment was pretty much considered settled case law which was thrown into disarray by Heller and McDonald. US v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) wasn’t very helpful since it addressed private action, but Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) and US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) both made it clear that the Second Amendment related to the Militia. Miller is usually not properly represented in recent “Second Amendment Scholarship” and totally ignored in the Heller and McDonald decisions because it is “not helpful”.
Indeed, it is not helpful to the recent decisions which were ultra vires because they amended the Constitution to add a new meaning to the Second Amendment, as this essay demonstrated. I would also add that Justice William O. Douglas addressed Miller and glossed it in his dissent in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972) , which somehow is omitted in lists of SCOTUS cases mentioning the Second Amendment. Which is too bad since Justice Douglas was a member of the Supreme Court when Miller was decided, which makes him a very good source for how that case should be read.
Justice Douglas pointed out that in Second Amendment jurisprudence:
The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, “must be interpreted and applied” with the view of maintaining a “militia.”
“The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia – civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” Id., at 178-179.
The Heller and McDonald decisions are examples of Judges failing to follow the rule of law, precedent, and their claimed theory of judicial interpretation. As I pointed out, those two decisions are ultra vires and should be ignored, which is easy since they are incredibly limited in their scope. But even then, some daring justice should show that the emperor has no clothes in these decisions.
Anyway, one doesn’t need to go far if you believe that the text of the Constitution is determining in how to interpret the Second Amendment that it only applies to the militia. It is quite obvious that the Second Amendment relates to the militia from the text. But the Heller and McDonald decisions made it clear that the text was optional, which means that Originalism is a nonsensical school of constitutional interpretation.
Yeah, yeah. I try not to post this stuff on my blog, but this one is pretty important. It was posted on Penigma, but I want my other post to get a few more views before this shows up again on that blog.
On the other hand, this needs to get out there. That said:
It would be really ironic if instead of all the mass shootings the US has suffered (my condolences to the victims and their families of those), that the incident that caused people to realise the US needs gun control is an out of control suburban mother fighting over a notebook in a suburban Wal-Mart.
No, pulling a gun in this situation is not self-defence by any stretch of the imagination. No one was fearing death or serious bodily injury which would justify even the threat of deadly force.
The woman pulling the gun is committing Felony Assault under Michigan law, Section 750.82.
The offense of Assault with a Deadly Weapon (ADW), is also known as Felonious Assault in Michigan. ADW is felony which is punishable by up to 4 years in prison. ADW is a crime which involves an assault with a deadly weapon (such as a gun or knife) or any other instrumentality which is fashioned or used as a weapon (car, club, bottle) which is capable of inflicting serious bodily injury or death. A criminal charge or conviction does not require actual physical contact or an injury. The offense is considered complete upon placing another in fear of an assault by a person who possesses a deadly weapon
Michigan law requires that the defendant “must have honestly and reasonably believed that he or she was in danger of being killed, seriously injured or sexually assaulted” in order to use deadly force. Additionally, the defendant “may only use as much force as he or she thinks is necessary at the time to protect himself or herself.”
While a person may believe he or she had acted in self-defense, the police, prosecutor, judge and jury may disagree.
No shots need to be fired for her to be found guilty.
I’m not sure how the “pro-gun” crowd can defend this action. I know responsible gun owners don’t, but it’s time they stepped up to the plate and admitted this shit happens too often with the relaxing of concealed carry law for it to be condoned.
One of the many failings of the Heller-McDonald bullshit is that those cases were not cases of first impression, but that post is coming in the future.
Excellent article on how firearms technology enables mass killing which takes it beyond the “cosmetic features” talk. I strongly suggest that anyone involved in this issue read this article.
Take an old movie serial, add a new voice over by the Firesign Theatre and you have some very funny stuff. In this case, the gun loon’s nightmare: Big Brother’s henchmen come for the last handgun on earth.
“To think people used to sleep with these things under their pillows.”
Prof. Simon Chapman’s Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and the Fight for Gun Control – Australia’s last gun massacre is now a free E-book and available at the following link:
I strongly suggest that anyone who is involved in the US gun violence/gun control movement read this book. Australia’s political climate surrounding this issue at the time of the Port Arthur Massacre was eerily similar to that of the US, yet the Australians were able to cut through the non-sense and enact serious and effective gun control laws.
This is a valuable lesson for people who want to see similar laws in the US.
This book is really about the workings of the media, the use of lobbying, and the skills of advocacy. So pick a day when you are tired of dealing with the aftermath of ignored public health issues and read this ripping yarn, arm yourself with the tools it offers, and be ready to go into battle.
require mandatory liability insurance be carried by every gun owner for every firearm they own, lease, or use. Once the cost of the liability gets involved, change will happen. Require gun insurance just like car insurance!
Maybe gun control won’t stop mass killings, but not having gun control definitely doesn’t stop them! In fact, looking at the past 230 odd years of the US being an indepndent country, we have seen that it is a highly violent and blood thirsty country.
One of the most striking things about shooting incidents in America…is how common they are. Another striking thing is how often the media fails to note the previous point, or to explore what that means—or what might be done about it.
Late last night, a gunman walked into a movie theater in a Denver suburb, killed 12 and injured 50. Two days earlier a gunman opened fire outside a bar in Tuscaloosa, Alabama in an incident in which at least 17 were hurt. These were not really so exceptional. Every year, about 100,000 Americans are victims of gun violence, and every week, people calmly enter our schools, our workplaces, our leisure gathering spots and open fire on innocent bystanders.
Whenever we tweet or post about these, often the only people we hear from are those who say we need more guns not less. “If I had been there with my gun….” The problem, of course, is the public at large is being asked to arm everyone and trust that, while the rest of us cower, “the right people” will quickly dispatch “the wrong people” in the modern equivalent of the Shootout at the OK Corral. No mention of whether the teacher is supposed to be armed…when a nut walks into a preschool and starts firing away.
Given that there have been 125 Mass Killings since Columbine, you think some serious solutions would be mentioned, yet it seems that there is the consistent response of inaction, or worse, the loosening of restrictions which make it easier for these incidents to happen.
Unfortunately, a realistic discussion of this aspect of US life never happens while the bodycount keeps rising. Instead, we keep hearing that the US needs more guns, but that is the cause of the problem.
If you consider that at least three of the last big mass shooting incidents were done by someone who bought his gun LEGALLY (Virginia Tech’s Seung-Hui Cho, Tucson’s Jared Laughner, and Aurora’s James Holmes), you would think that some alarms would be going off in people’s heads in the US. Yet, the usual reaction of “oh, there’s nothing that can be done about this sort of thing” is once again to be heard.
Sure, there will be some people talking about actually doing something about firearms, but it will once again go quiet once all the outrage dies out. That is quite a difference from how these incidents are handled in other parts of the world–especially one’s that share a heritage with the US. Hugerford saw a tightening of UK gun laws, Dunblane led to pretty much all handguns being taken from private possession in the UK, And The Port Arthur incident saw Australia’s gun laws tighten up intensely in less than a year. But, the US averages 20 mass shootings a year.The Brady Campaign has a tally of these since 2005.
Mother Jones has an interactive map of mass shootings in the US since 1982. Some estimate the figure to have been 125 Mass Killings since Columbine: I don’tthink the number is that low. Mother Jones found that out of the 132 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally. The arsenal included dozens of assault weapons and high-powered handguns. (See charts below.) Just as Jeffrey Weise used a .40-caliber Glock to massacre students in Red Lake, Minnesota, in 2005, so too did James Holmes when blasting away at his victims in a darkened movie theater. Mother Jones also found that half of the cases involved school or workplace shootings (11 and 17, respectively); the other 28 cases took place in locations including shopping malls, restaurants, government buildings, and military bases. Only one of the killers was a woman. (See Goleta, Calif., in 2006.)
Of course, that is a limited guide to mass shootings since very few people have an accurate grasp on how much firearms harm society, and that’s the way the gun lobby would like it. Like the climate denial crowd, they want to flood the marketplace of ideas with shit science. The fact that the NRA is so terrified of correct and accurate numbers being collected that they obstruct any legislative attempt to do so is as clear a red flag that they know an informed public will not follow, support or agree with them as you could ask for as an indicator of a serious problem. But, like climate change, the truth is out there (I give a pitch for this blog) if one is willing to sift through an internet filled with loads of bullshit.
Fact is, the carnage has been going on at least since the 1978, but probably much longer, yet no one wants to do anything about it. There is too much fantasy out there about people being able to outshoot the gunman, which is total crap in this case since they would have had to do it through a haze of tear gas. Unfortunately, it is the fantasy which will win out in all this as it always has seemed to have done in recent years.
But, as the graphic says: “By looking closely at Holmes’ ammunition and equipment, it becomes clear the attack at the movie theatre could have been much worse.” The question is when will it be so bad that people in the US will finally feel some outrage at the carnage happening around them and say enough?
We have seen chaos and looting in US cities over the past week. Gun stores have lines that wrap around the block as people scramble to buy weapons to defend their homes.
Laci the dog's Blog 