MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

'Assault Weapon' Banners Assert False Distinctions Because the Real Ones Are Silly

This arbitrary category of firearms is not distinguished by rate of fire or muzzle velocity.

C-SPANC-SPANThe New York Times explains why the Florida Senate rejected a "two-year moratorium on sales of AR-15 semiautomatic rifles" on Saturday: "The votes just aren't there." While that is tautologically true whenever a bill fails to gain majority support, the point in this case is that the votes really should be there, given that 62 percent of Florida voters "favored an assault weapons ban" in a recent poll. The implication is that Republican legislators, blinded by ideology and fear of the NRA, are defying the will of the people.

That is one possible explanation. Alternatively, it could be that Republican legislators oppose an "assault weapon" ban because they think it is not worth supporting. The latter interpretation gains credibility when you notice that supporters of such legislation, rather than offering a logical argument in its favor, tend to treat it as self-evidently dictated by "common sense." When they try to do more that, the best they can offer is misdirection and obfuscation.

Last week, for instance, an article in the Times said AR-15-style rifles are particularly deadly because they are "fed with box magazines" that "can be swapped out quickly, allowing a gunman to fire more than a hundred rounds in minutes." But that is true of any gun that accepts detachable magazines, including many models that do not qualify as "assault weapons."

Yesterday the Times reported that "military-style rifles" fire "lightweight, high-speed bullets that can cause grievous bone and soft tissue wounds," injuries worse than those typically caused by handguns. As one trauma surgeon explains, "the energy imparted to a human body by a high-velocity weapon is exponentially greater" than the energy imparted by a handgun. But that observation is true of rifles in general; it is not unique to so-called assault weapons.

While the .223-caliber round typically fired by AR-15-style rifles does have a relatively high muzzle velocity, other cartridges, fired by guns that are not considered "assault weapons," equal or surpass it. Furthermore, muzzle velocity is not the only factor in a bullet's lethality; size also matters, and so-called assault weapons fire smaller rounds than many hunting rifles. Both velocity and mass figure into muzzle energy, a measure of a bullet's destructive power. As UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh notes, "the .223 rifles that are often labeled 'assault weapons' have a much lower muzzle energy than familiar hunting rifles such as the .30-06."

Iver JohnsonIver JohnsonRugerRugerMore to the point, neither muzzle velocity nor muzzle energy has anything to do with the definition of "assault weapons," which hinges on military-style features such as folding stocks, pistol grips, and barrel shrouds. And while all so-called assault weapons accept detachable magazines, many guns that accept detachabale magazines do not fall into this arbitrary category because they lack the features that offend politicians like Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the federal "assault weapon" ban that expired in 2004 and has been pushing a revised version since the mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, last month.

To give you a sense of how silly Feinstein's distinctions are, her bill specifically exempts the Iver Johnson M–1 Carbine (above right, top) and the Ruger Mini-14 (above right, bottom), but only when they have fixed stocks. Adding a folding or adjustable stock to these rifles transforms them from legitimate firearms into proscribed "assault weapons," even though that change does not make them any more lethal or suitable for mass murder. That's the sort of nonsensical line drawing that must be defended by any honest and well-informed advocate of a renewed "assault weapon" ban, assuming such a person exists.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I like that you're bringing that photo back. It's not often that you get to see Diane Feinstein's and Donald Trump's O-faces at the same time.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's not often a sentence makes me vomit onto my massive erection.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    That's only the third one so far today, huh.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Seriously, though, where is her other hand?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Well, she was seated next to Liddle Marco, seen here smelling his fingers afterwards, so take your best guess, if you dare.

  • sarcasmic||

    But, but, but scary looking guns are deadlier because they're scary looking!

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    And that is why school shooters choose them, and why we need to ban them. This is not about rates of fire or muzzle velocity. This is about instilling fear into millions of Americans that these scary-looking guns are out there, just waiting to be picked up by pressing 'A' on your controller.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Are you a judge on the 4th Circuit [because you sure sound like one]?

  • Brandybuck||

    A pink M1 with fuzzy grip is so much less deadly during a school shooting than a scary AR-15 with scary black plastic.

  • creech||

    They are cool looking. All the kids want to carry what they see in war movies, tv shows, etc. M-1 carbine is something old fashioned that great grandpa carried even if it is no less deadly than folding stocks and cool stuff that the SWAT guys carry.

  • eno.river.bend||

    No, no. Feinstein really just likes the, ahem, solid wood. If you know what I mean.

  • Rebel Scum||

    I figure the scarier my gun looks, the less likely i'll actually have to pull the trigger.

  • sarcasmic||

    That's one reason I really, really like my GP100. A shiny 357 mag with a four inch barrel is an intimidating machine.

  • BambiB||

    While the Iver Johnson M–1 Carbine shown might be "legal", the M-1 Carbine frequently comes with a bayonet lug.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The Supreme Ayatollah has come out in favor of gun control for US citizens.

    Here, see a story about a gay teenager executed in Iran. No one in Iran needs an AR-15.

  • Cy||

    That's fake new. Islam is the religion of peace!

    PoundMeToo

  • mpercy||

    Islam is a religion of peace, and Brutus is an honorable man.

  • Tony||

    The logic of what you're implying cannot possibly be within shooting distance of sanity. Do you think if the gay kid had an AR-15 he could have eluded his government captors by shooting enough of them?

    Or is it that a regime that sees fit to execute gay kids is going to somehow tolerate gun ownership liberalism at the same time?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "The logic of what you're implying cannot possibly be within shooting distance of sanity"

    A perfect description of every idea you've ever expressed in this forum.

  • ||

    BURNED

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    One wonders how it got to this place in Iran...

    I suppose it's possible that one gay couldn't fight off his government captors because some sort of gun-control thingy was in place long before, by the consent of the people.

  • Tony||

    Yes, Iran, home to one of the oldest civilizations on earth, persecutes gays because it didn't have a 2nd Amendment.

  • Bruce D||

    They persecute a lot of people because they don't have a 2nd Amendment. If the Iranian people owned firearms in the same proportion as Americans, the type of government they have there now would not be there.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    No, they persecute gays because they live under sharia law. The gays are unable to defend themselves, in part because it is impossible for them to obtain and keep weapons in Iran. Do try to keep up

  • Brendan||

    Widespread ("liberal") gun ownership makes it very hard for a regime to pursue a policy of executing gay kids (or any other 'undesirable' group).

  • Tony||

    But why would an oppressive regime ever permit the very thing that you allege is sufficient to overthrow it?

  • Lachowsky||

    That's an own goal there buddy.

    Why would a liberal regime try to deny you the very thing thing needed to overthrow an oppressive one?

  • Tony||

    Because I like my liberal regimes strong enough themselves to be able to fight off oppressive ones that would conquer it. That necessarily conflicts with arming the citizens sufficiently to overthrow it, which is almost always going to be a bad idea anyway. I certainly don't share the politics of the people who would be first to incite civil war, so why would I want them to be able to do it?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Because I like my liberal regimes strong enough themselves to be able to fight off oppressive ones that would conquer it. ""

    The weak regime is the one that takes people who have no experience shooting. Think of the liberal that shot the AR-15 and claimed it gave him PSTD.

    The strong regime is the one that includes people who have much experience shooting.
    Think of the gun nut with much hunting experience.

  • Lachowsky||

    A liberal regime that is strong enough to fight off an oppressive one needs the means to fight off the rise of an oppressive one. If by regime you mean the government, then the governemnt will need to heavily armed and any potential usurpers will need to be disarmed. A strong armed government combined with disarmed population doesn't sound very liberal to me.

    And the people who would incite a civil war are the people who share your politics. Gun owners of all stripes want your kind to leave them alone. If you leave them alone, they won't incite anything.

  • ImanAzol||

    The fallacy in your argument is the claim that there can exist a non-oppressive liberal regime.

  • Bruce D||

    If they are so afraid that citizens would overthrow it, then maybe it's an oppressive regime that needs to be overthrown.

  • Chasman1965||

    On the contrary, for a regime to remain liberal, it's best that the citizenry remain armed. Liberal regimes have no worry about having a violent revolution. The incipient totalitarian regimes worry about a violent revolution.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Thanks for openly averring your statist point of view. You may leave the room now. Hurriedly, please

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    But why would an oppressive regime ever permit the very thing that you allege is sufficient to overthrow it?

    They don't. They grab the guns first, and then start oppressing.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    But why would an oppressive regime ever permit the very thing that you allege is sufficient to overthrow it?

    They don't. They grab the guns first, and then start oppressing.

  • Chasman1965||

    That is exactly the point. Oppressive regimes by definition don't allow their citizenry to remain armed. The best protection against an oppressive regime (besides a knowledgeable population) is arms in the hands of citizens. We will never allow for an oppressive regime.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Tony,

    Do you think if the gay kid had an AR-15 he could have eluded his government captors by shooting enough of them?


    Selling your life dearly seems to challenge your sensibilities a bit too much, doesn't it? Better to let yourself be martyred by Beloved State because that will keep the Sun from going nova, or something.

  • Reverend Draco||

    Exactly.

    "If someone tries to kill you. . . you try to kill 'em right back!"

    At least make it an even trade - one of them for one of you - and if you can take more than one with you, much better.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "No one in Iran needs an AR-15."

    That's because they all have AK-47's

  • Cy||

    They just want the scary guns. The common sense guns are ok!

  • Citizen X - #6||

    size also matters

    Not according to your mom. Ohhhh!

  • DaveSs||

    which hinges on military-style features such as folding stocks, pistol grips, and barrel shrouds

    What exactly makes those features 'military-style'

    I realize you are just copying the nomenclature of the day, but that is another thing that the banners really ought to embarrass themselves trying to explain like how a barrel shroud is a shoulder thing that goes up.

  • sarcasmic||

    Do you know how many mass killings would have been averted if the killer ran the risk of burning themselves on a hot barrel? All of them! Scary guns must be banned!

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Flashing back to the moment this young E-1 touched the gas tube on his hot off the range M16A1. Memories, painful memories.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Yes but you only did it once. Amazing what a single incidence of negative reinforcement can accomplish that a screaming DI cannot.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Burning his hand was not reinforcement because "reinforcement strengthens behavior", and this event helped suppress the behavior. The phrase "negative reinforcement" is constantly misused in this way. Properly speaking this was a "punishment", i.e., it served to suppress a behavior.

  • Rebel Scum||

    military-style

    Also, the entire point of 2A is to have military weapons in the hands of citizens. Technology changes. Rights do not.

  • cgr2727||

    We can settle this once and for all if a state like Texas or somewhere else that actually protects the second amendment were to do the following: amend its state constitution to declare that all citizens are automatically members of the state militia, a la Israel or Switzerland. Basic training could be accomplished by checking an extra box on a form at the DMV. Your annual call-up would be sending in a postcard every fourth of July that says "yep, still in the militia." Gets rid of all the quibbling about "well-regulated militia," and/or exposes the gun-grabbers for what they really are.

    Also, isn't an M1 Garand a "military style" weapon, or does it not count because it doesn't have the thing that goes up and the scary handle? Donuts to dollars, unless it's close-in self-defense (and maybe even then), I'd take that M1 over an AR any day.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Or they could simply sue the Federal Government to overturn the NFA.

  • ImanAzol||

    Federal law already says they are. Title 10, USC, Ch 13, Sec 311.

    Article 2, Sec 2 provides for the President to recall them.

    the CMP exists to equip and train them.

    Well regulated.

  • Brandybuck||

    ""What exactly makes those features 'military-style'""

    They are military style because Diane Feinstein once saw something that looked like them in a war movie. Duh.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm looking to build an AR10 in the not too distant future. .223 is for pussies.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I've heard two arguments against them that seemed to make sense--but I'm not sure about the second.

    The first is the weight. If you use a polymer lower and a carbon fiber, light weight barrel I understand that can be mitigated.

    The second is that they say the military mostly uses AR-10s because they can't use expanding bullets (international agreements) in their version of the AR-15. They say that you face no such prohibition in a defensive situation, and the advantage of having a larger caliber is (and lugging around extra weight), therefore, unrealized for civilians.

    I find the range of an AR-10 compelling from a recreational shooting standpoint. In real life, I'm not sure anyone outside of the military or Utah ever needs to shoot anything smaller than an Elk buck at more than 200 yards.

  • Agammamon||

    Carbon fiber barrel sleeves are ridiculously expensive - maybe that guy in Vegas could afford to throw one away on a mass shooting but the average person isn't buying them and they're not widely available. Though they might be cheaper now - my price data comes from 5 years ago when only one company was manufacturing them and I see that there are several others in the market now. But I've only seen them for .22LR rifles and not for anything larger.

  • sarcasmic||

    I just want a .308. Not committed to buying anything yet, but an AR 10 in that caliber is appealing.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    I've wanted an FAL since I was a kid. Will settle for an SA58.

  • Lachowsky||

    Like mine

    It's fun to shoot. Unfortunantly it was imported under the old AWB. It has its bayonet lug ground off and came with thumb hole stock. I put the right stock on it, but the only way of getting the lug back is to buy a new barrel.

  • DJK||

    I love my AR-10. It's a little longer and a little heavier than an AR-15 but not terribly so. The recoil of .308 is significantly more than .223 but nothing compared to 12 gauge.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Check out that Nutnfancy video I linked below.

    700+ yards, no bs, over and over again.

    That's what you can't do with an AR-15.

    Like I said, though, I'm not sure why you'd ever need to hit anything from 700+ yards.

    If the gun grabbers had a clue, that might be the kind of thing they'd go after--the ability to hit things from 700 yards away.

    In wide open Utah, you might have to pick off an Elk bull from more than few hundred yards, since there are no trees and they can see you coming from a long way away.

    But nooooOOoooooo. They concentrate on high capacity and semi-auto--and especially if the gun is painted black. Those black finishes are so scary!

  • Cy||

    They AR10 is a more practical hunting rifle than the AR15. It's also, in most states, while hunting anything bigger than a coyote, the only legal hunting rifle of the two.

    It's really annoying how everyone keeps talking about the AR15 as a high powered rifle. In the realm of rifle's it's a midget. So small, in fact, that you're not allowed to hunt deer with it.

    One of the justifications for the military's lack of AR10s, I heard from a good SF friend of mine: "Why the hell would I want to try to shoot something over 100 yards away? We have the Airforce for that."

    The military swapped from the AR10 (the M16's grand daddy) to the M16 because they wanted to wound the opposition, not kill them. Let that sink in. A wounded enemy soldier takes 2 soldiers out of the fighting AND it allows information extraction that wouldn't have happened if the enemy soldier were killed.

    So, from a civilian standpoint, in most situations, the AR10 is a much more practical gun to have than the AR15. Granted, if you're under 170 lbs... the AR10 is just a bit too much to handle.

  • Bubba Jones||

    AR15 in 6.5 Grendel for hunting.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Or 300 BLK for shorter range.

  • Cy||

    "Or 300 BLK for shorter range."


    I toiled for a while about buying the .300 instead of the .308. It's a really nice round and the extra 10 in the mag is really tempting too. I finally settled on just how cheap it is to shoot 7.62/.308 over, what was at the time a relatively new ammo. Still glad I went with the .308. I won't lie though, I'll probably still wind up buying a 300 blackout AR15.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    You can switch the .300 and 5.56 upper using the same lower, as well as the magazines. Just be sure to have a dedicated BCG for each [even if those are interchangeable]

  • Bubba Jones||

    300 is optimized for an 11" barrel, especially with a suppressor. But it drops like a rock by 300m. I don't see myself taking a shot over 200m but YMMV.

    I don't see the point turning my AR into a 1911, but whatever.

    I like the ballistics of a 135g 300 BLK with an AR pistol. I like that it uses the same lower, mags and BCG as my 5.56.

    For 16" or longer barrels, I would choose a different caliber. 300 BLK doesn't have enough propellant to use that length. Pick a .308 or a 6.5 Grendel or maybe the .224 Valkyrie if you want more bang than a 5.56 in a full length rifle.

  • target||

    i've been interested in the Grendel for years now. Did they ever solve that scarcity of ammo issue they had with Alexander Arms holding sole rights to manufacture?

  • Bubba Jones||

    Alexander Arms put the copyright in the public domain so that SAAMI could issue specs, etc. There are lots of ammo choices on ammoseek new.

  • sarcasmic||

    I want a .308 for hunting, but I want a scary-looking gun as well. AR10 kills two birds with one bullet.

  • Overt||

    I'm not a fan of any of the ARs for hunting. You add a lot of weight for the semi-auto which in many hunting situations isn't a huge positive.

    I have a BAR in 30-06 and the thing is noticeably more work to pack around after hiking 15 miles up and down hills- and it is 1-1.5lbs lighter than an AR-10. On my last elk bull, the semi-auto didn't really help. In the time it took me to re-acquire and wait for him to pop back out of a tree, I could have chambered another round manually.

    To be fair, different hunts will have different constraints. If you are stationed in a blind, or hunting mostly flat terrain, the downsides of an AR aren't as bad. But at least in the mountains of Colorado, I personally looked very hard at my bolt and lever actions each morning before a day of hiking with the BAR, and if it had been another pound heavier, it would have likely stayed in the tent.

  • sarcasmic||

    Like I said, I'm not committed to anything yet.

  • Mock-star||

    If you are buying outright, Ar10s are nice. If youre "building" your own, do so cautiously, as AR10s -having never been adopted by the military - dont have the parts standardization that AR15s do.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    They prefer the AR-15 because you can carry a lot more rounds of 5.56 than 7.62, and full auto in 7.62 is uncontrollable. For short to medium range 7.62 is overkill. Same reason the Russkies went with the AK-74 for their own troops.

  • Bruce D||

    The military chose the M16 in 5.56mm NATO (,223 Rem. rough equiv.) as a way of circumventing the Geneva Convention prohibition of expanding projectiles. The 5.56 M855 ball with a light bullet weight of 62 gr @ 3000+ fps has a tendency to tumble when it hits an object the consistency of a human body, thus creating a wound as large as a larger caliber expanding bullet.

  • Chasman1965||

    The U.S. military never used the AR-10. We used the M-14 in .308, which was replaced by the M-16.

  • Chasman1965||

    Why would they go after that? I can't recall many sniping murders happening at 700 yards.

  • dave b.||

    Polymer lowers are for liberals and terrorists

  • Bubba Jones||

    The US armed forces issue variants of the M16 in 5.56 x45 as the primary rifle and carbine.

    Some M14 variants are issued in 7.62x54 to a subset of soldiers to enhance the ability to engage at longer distances, especially in Afghanistan. Think 600 meters for M14 vs 400 for the M16 for a typical solder. Snipers can shoot farther with specialized rifles in 7.62 or .338 Lapua or .50 BMG.

    The 5.56 is used because it is big enough to kill a human but small enough to let a soldier carry 50% more ammo than 7.62. It also has less recoil and allows more rapid and accurate fire than a traditional 30 caliber battle rifle.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I have both [10 and 15] and like them both, for different reasons. The AR 15 is great for CQB and fast moving situations [for me a 3 gun competition] but the .308 is much better for long range, and it is noticeably heavier. Needs a bipod for best results. Different rifles, different calibers, different situational applications. Beyond the platform I really cannot compare the two.

  • ImanAzol||

    .308 is unnecessary for 98% of combat engagements. It works fine for a support weapon or sniper weapon. This is why literally every nation on Earth has gone to a 5-6mm caliber.

    The ammo is twice as heavy, the weapon is heavier, thus reducing combat load of ammo.

    US issue 5.56mm actually has better terminal ballistics than US 7.62mm. Though the fanbois will scream it's not possible and trust their feelings rather than lab results.

    It's not just the bullet energy. It's the energy transfer.

  • Chasman1965||

    Huh? The military primarily uses 5.56mm NATO M-4s, not AR-10 derivatives. Yes, they issue a few AR-10 type rifles, but not many.

    Personally I think that for home defense, a 5.56 mm AR type rifle loaded with expanding bullets, would be about ideal. From what I've read, the expanding bullets in that small caliber don't manage to penetrate as much sheetrock (interior walls) as do handgun bullets or buckshot pellets.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    I heard a talking head refer to AR15s as large caliber weapons. No one needs AR10 artillery.

  • Agammamon||

    But, but . . . but - 10 is *smaller*?

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    +1 M1 Garand mouse gun

  • Cy||

    If they like 'smaller' they'll love Ma Deuce.

  • Ken Shultz||

    No one needs a '64 Plymouth Fury convertible with a stock 383 Commando and dual exhaust either.

    I enjoyed having one anyway.

    Nutnfancy is a pretty down to earth dude. Being able to hit that consistently from 700 yards looks like fun.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JPnPFp2G44

    Like I said, it's a recreational thing.

    I don't need a motorcycle that can outrun any production car on the planet, but hell if I don't enjoy the fuck out of it anyway.

  • Tony||

    Pity you can't just enjoy a large penis and save all that money.

  • KevinP||

    Pity you can't just enjoy a large penis and save all that money.

    LOL, why are gun control advocates so obsessed with other people's genital organs?

    Here is a gun owner who is compensating for impotence and sexual inadequacy:

    Woman shoots her stalker in the throat


    Quote:
    Ganobick slammed her head into an unknown object, told her to 'give me all your money', and showed her a knife, the arrest report said.

    'The victim stated she was afraid that she would be raped or murdered and as she fell across the passenger seat of her vehicle, she was able to reach into her purse and grab her gun and attempt to fire a shot at the suspect,' the report states.
  • Tony||

    Uh... as a woman she has a penis so small it's nonexistent.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Much like your brain.

  • Brendan||

    What you enjoy on your own time really should stay your business. Reason is not your personal erotica site.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    No, it totally is.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There's generally no need to go after Tony.

    Given enough time, he eventually makes a fool of himself without any help.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    You really are "hung up" and the sexual analogy, aren't you?

  • Tony||

    Genuinely a joke based on this discussion from the other thread.

    I've always driven sports cars so I can't say anything.

  • operagost||

    You don't need a car with such a high power-to-weight ratio.

  • sarcasmic||

    Leftists like Tony feel that 'ad hominems' and 'switching the burden of proof' are logical arguments.

    By accusing gun owners of having small penises, he simultaneously makes a personal attack and puts the person in a position of proving otherwise. If it wasn't for fallacies, Tony would have no arguments.

  • Bruce D||

    Tony, do a search on: psychology projection

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    The "no one needs" argument is one that I find particularly arrogant. The people who are making it are really saying "since I don't want one, nobody else should be allowed to have one either". They really think their own estimation of what is "needed" should be imposed by force on others.

  • sarcasmic||

    They really think their own estimation of what is "needed" should be imposed by force on others.

    That's the hallmark of every leftist ever.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Bingo!

    We have a winner.

  • sarcasmic||

    "Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."

    ― Robert A. Heinlein

  • Tony||

    That claim is simplistic and wrong and stupid.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    It's a presumably free country. What people think other people need is irrelevant. (and none of their business)

    I own a gun because I want to. Until I point it at someone, it's no one else's business.

  • Tony||

    I want to own a thousand grenades but have absolutely no ill will toward anyone and would never use them. I'll just keep them in a glass case for looking at. So why shouldn't we let everyone buy grenades in whatever quantity they want?

  • Arizona_Guy||

    Seems like a waste of money and storage space. But go for it.

  • Bruce D||

    So long as their not threatening anyone.

  • VinniUSMC||

    You can buy grenades, if you want. If you can fine a seller, pay for the tax stamp, wait about 6 months, yadda yadda. Same as a fully automatic weapon.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Guns don't hit targets consistently from 700 yards, people do.

  • ||

    .223 is for pussies.

    Personally, I'd never hunt them with anything less than the standard 2.5 caliber.

  • dave b.||

    Deep down inside, I kinda hope we get a temporary ban on AR-15's. It would be a huge help to my retirement accounts and I need an excuse to buy a FN SCAR.

  • ||

    It would be a huge help to my retirement accounts and I need an excuse to buy a FN SCAR.

    Assuming the two aren't mutually exclusive.

  • dave b.||

    It has to stop somewhere. At least that's what I keep telling myself

  • sarcasmic||

    They say the average American gun owning household has 8 guns, and super-owners have 17.

    Here's an unnerving statistic: 2% of Americans own 50% of the guns.

    That means that the gun grabbers could grab half the guns in the country by disarming only two percent of the population.

  • Tony||

    When you put it that way it doesn't seem like such a daunting task, huh?

  • ||

    Um... yeah.

    You're still going to need several forklifts and some pretty massive kilns just to move and destroy all those guns and instead of taking them from the lowly crackhead on the street corner, you're likely talking about some of the most powerful businessmen, respected men (and women) and industry leaders in the country.

    Jesus Christ do you watch a professional basketball game on TV and think, "It's only 5 guys, how hard could it be?"

  • Tony||

    As with so many other things, like climate change, the more you idiots insist on making the problem worse, the bigger the big-government solution that will be required.

  • sarcasmic||

    like climate change, the more you idiots insist on making the problem worse

    So... When are you going to sell your car and drop off the grid? You're not? Well then, looks like you're burning just as much gas and coal as the rest of us.

  • Tony||

    A single liberal virtue signalling doesn't solve a global problem. I've been trying to tell liberals that forever.

  • Bruce D||

    They have to find the 2% and they have to find all their guns.

  • Cy||

    They could try.

  • dave b.||

    They could ban them tomorrow. Who's going to turn theirs in?

  • Tony||

    People who appreciate the choice between living in their houses without their guns and living in an American prison without their guns?

  • sarcasmic||

    Yeah. Because government is an omniscient god that knows where all the guns are. Sure, dood.

  • dave b.||

    Come and get them

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Moron labia.

  • Bruce D||

    In that scenario a vast right-wing inderground will emerge. There'd be plenty of guns.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    The remaining half is still a shit-ton of guns.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    That means that the gun grabbers could grab half the guns in the country by disarming only two percent of the population.

    That's an interesting thought experiment, but at about the .0001% it's going to get very, very real.

    I honestly don't think the core urban areas have any idea how strongly a belief will be defended in this country.

  • Bruce D||

    "...the core urban areas..."

    I wonder how they'd like living without food, fuel, electricity, and possibly even water.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    That's why they so desperately push a strong federal government.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    17? LOL. You're not a super-owner until you have a sofa made of milsurp rifles.

  • Ra's al Gore||

    the idea is to get something banned, get us to compromise, then have them 'discover' all the guns that are just as dangerous as the ones we all already agreed are too dangerous for civilians.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "As one trauma surgeon explains, "the energy imparted to a human body by a high-velocity weapon is exponentially greater" than the energy imparted by a handgun."

    Well that depends, what is the muzzle energy of a .223 compared to a .454 Casull or a S&W .500 magnum?

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    If only wackjobs would attack schools with shotguns instead of infinite energy weapons, what a wonderful world...

  • Gilbert Martin||

    And if the cops on the scene would actually engage the shooter instead of sitting outside the building with their thumbs up their asses, that would be pretty good too.

  • sarcasmic||

    Cops on the scene are put into an impossible situation. They are trained in basically two things: officer safety and total compliance (obey or die). All their training tells them that the one of the few things that can get them fired is to put their safety at risk. They're just not allowed to do it. But if they do what their training tells them to do they're going to be pilloried, and possibly lose their job. I'd feel sympathy for they weren't all complete assholes.

  • sarcasmic||

    for if

  • DJK||

    .223 = 1800 J.
    .454 Casull = 2500 J.
    On another note, what does "exponentially greater" mean? Sounds like someone who doesn't understand the word "exponential".

  • ||

    Sounds like someone who doesn't understand the word "exponential".

    0.99 can be an exponent.

  • sarcasmic||

    kinetic energy = 0.5mv^2

    Same mass at greater velocity equals exponentially greater energy. By definition.

  • DJK||

    That's not how I would have defined exponential, but fine.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's the more colloquial usage of exponential. Because that's a power function, not an exponential function.

    Exponential growth is f(x) = a^x. The classic example would be a doubling function or something. Where every time unit the output doubles. This is modeled by 2^t. Like bacteria growth or something is this.

  • BearOdinson||

    You are technically correct, but when comparing different size ammunition, it is usually a trade off between mass and velocity. That is why the .500 magnum pistol round has 5 times the mass of the NATO 5.56 round, 2/3 the velocity, and still has DOUBLE the muzzle (kinetic) energy.

  • sarcasmic||

  • Michael P||

    By definition, that is not what "exponentially" means. That is a polynomial function. Exponential growth is of the form f(x) = a^x, at least when a > 1. (When 0 < a < 1, we usually call it exponential or geometric decay. When a = 0 or a = 1, it is constant. When a < 0, the function stops producing only real numbers.)

  • Michael P||

    There are three reasons that it is poor thinking to agree with the claim that some guns cause "exponentially greater" damage than others. First, it is unclear which variable should be in the exponent. Second, it is unclear what the base of the exponent is. Third, it is intended and functions as pure hyperbole.

  • BearOdinson||

    Since you asked (From Wiki):

    S&W .500 Magnum, 300grain Hornady FTX (Test Barrel length 8 3/8")
    Muzzle Velocity=2075 ft/sec; Muzzle Energy=2868 ft-lbf

    5.56mm 62 grain M855A1 FMJ (Test Barrel length 20")
    Muzzle Velocity=3100 ft/sec; Muzzle Energy= 1393 ft-lbf)

    Mass is important!

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Mass is important!"

    That's why it's best to have a 16 inch Iowa class battleship gun tube installed in your house!

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Every time you fire it, your house moves back 5 feet.

  • sarcasmic||

    One day at the range someone was testing his brand spanking new Raging Bull. He let me give it a go. Holy fucking crap. That was fun. I have no plans to buy one though. My GP100 is good enough for me.

  • Cy||

    "My GP100 is good enough for me."

    I only like mine when I'm wearing earplugs.

  • sarcasmic||

    It is one loud motherfucker. That's for sure.

  • cgr2727||

    "As one trauma surgeon explains, "the energy imparted to a human body by a high-velocity weapon is exponentially greater" than the energy imparted by a handgun."

    Dear trauma surgeon: take your pick: .22LR pistol to the temple or .308 Winchester to the thigh? Sure it's a Sophie's choice, but you're still scraping brains off the wall.

  • Chasman1965||

    Heavy loaded .44 magnums are in the same neighborhood of muzzle energy as the .223.

  • KevinP||

    There are good reasons for law abiding citizens to own semiautomatic rifles, whether or not they are cosmetically called "assault weapons". They are more accurate than a pistol, ergonomic, often lightweight, and built to be reliable and dependable, which make them good for self-defense. The low powered 5.56 mm round often fails to pass through walls, making it safer for innocent bystanders than many shotgun and pistol rounds.

    The AR for Home Defense: One Expert's Opinion


    Quotes (but read the whole article):
    The AR is very easy to shoot...
    Men and women alike just shoot better with a carbine than with a pistol.
    Although we can quickly get the pistol into the fight, the carbine will get there and be more shootable for the average person. With a carbine in the low-ready position, the average shooter can get shots on target in less than one second.
    The AR has little to no recoil. Even when fired from a strong- or support-hand-only position, its recoil is negligible. Pistols and shotguns recoil far more than most .223 carbines. Less recoil means more time on target...
  • CaveMan||

    "The low powered 5.56 mm round often fails to pass through walls, making it safer for innocent bystanders than many shotgun and pistol rounds."

    Not true. The 5.56, even the Frangible rounds, will regularly pass through 8 sheets of dry wall set up as 4 -2x4 framed walls 10 feet apart. The 5.56 is tumbling erratically after the first wall but it will go through another 3 walls at least. The only round that will not penetrate multiple sheet rock walls is birdshot. Give the website Box O'Truth a look.

  • Chasman1965||

    I've seen different tests that had different results than Box o' truth.

    http://how-i-did-it.org/drywall/results.html

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Step one: Disarm the people.
    Step two: _______________

  • albo||

    Step three: Win elections!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    After step two, elections probably aren't super-necessary.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Step One: Brainwash eager guntards
    Step Two: Watch them mindlessly troll for their masters, with silly lies and nonsense claims.

    "For the cause" (believed every manipulated follower throughout human history.)

  • Bruce D||

    Brainwashed guncontroltards by the media.

  • albo||

    I want a ban on military-style shit on a shingle. Creamed mystery meat over toast is a huge killer.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Six aviators died once and were brought back to the ship, stuffed into the meat freezer to being back to land. The jokes! Oh my, the jokes .....

  • Michael Hihn||

    Sorry, only semi-automatic weapons may currently be banned or restricted.
    But .... "fairy tales can come true, it can happen for you, if you WANT to beleeb that they're true."

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    My favorite "military" feature is the bayonet lug. Absolutely military, absolutely irrelevant. They may as well add the letters "AR-15" while they're at it.

  • DJK||

    Definitely grenade launcher. Kinda worthless without the grenades it's impossible to get....

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    But you could launch flares, or homemade grenades. Whereas a bayonet has never been used in any kind of spree stabbing.

  • ragebot||

    Well if the truth be known more peeps are killed by knives than long guns.

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/.....e-control/

  • Rebel Scum||

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Sad part is many who watch this embarrassing foolery will come away without questioning his "facts" at all. Just like those who get their "news" from Steven Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Just like those who get their "news" from Steven Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel.

    And the NRA.

  • Bruce D||

    NRA is far more knowledgable, truthful and reliable.

  • Brandybuck||

    ""the point in this case is that the votes really should be there, given that 62 percent of Florida voters "favored an assault weapons ban" in a recent poll.""

    This is an argumentative fallacy that I call the Polling Bias (not sure of its formal name). Because poll numbers are stated, therefore truth. But not only are polls ephemeral opinions, they are heavily biased by the question asked, the wording of which is never provided in the argument (or even in the PR announcement of the results). Ask those same people if they want to rescind the 2nd amendment. Ask those same people what an "assault weapon" is. Ask those same people if they want to abolish congress and just have direct polling run the country.

    Ask those people who got bumped from the poll because they had an answer other than "yes" or "no". Ask those people who got bumped from the poll because they failed the qualifying questions.

    Polling is bullshit, and those that use this fallacy know it. Ask the same question in a different way and get different results. This is why we do not and should not have rule by polling.

  • Michael Hihn||

    This is why we do not and should not have rule by polling.

    Elections are polls.
    Conducted at POLLING places!

    Guntards - Libtards = Zero
    Both eagerly brainwashed, then scurry around like cockroaches, trolling their tribal agenda.
    Sad to watch. But a shrinking minority. Time wounds all heels.

  • Bruce D||

    Only tards libtards. No such thing as a "guntard", only gungeniuses.

  • I can't even||

    "neither muzzle velocity nor muzzle energy has anything to do with the definition of "assault weapons..."

    Actually, no. Muzzle energy is part of the real definition of an assault rifle.

    1. Medium / Intermediate Powered cartridge: More energy than the average pistol, less than a full-powered rifle like the .30-06.

    2. Detachable Magazine

    3. Select-fire - semi-automatic or burst / full-auto capable

    That's it. Pistol-grips and the rest are just dressing.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Actually, no. Muzzle energy is part of the real definition of an assault rifle.

    You could win NEXT year's Oscar for best fictional screenplay.

  • I can't even||

  • Michael Hihn||

    NOW you say "the real definition of an assault rifle" is on a NOTHING web site!!

    You could win NEXT year's Oscar for best fictional screenplay.
    Now for cartoons

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't like it when his stupidity is exposed.

  • Sopater||

    I think that the real concern is that they want to find a way to ban guns that they believe bad guys like. If bad guys like folding stocks, then they gotta go.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Straw man fallacy for guntards. Banning or restricting ALL semi-automatic weapons has been constitutional since 1939. (Robotic guntards will now fight their way to the head of the line -- for the privilege of raging lies, programmed by gun manufacturers. The INFANTILE lie that gun ownership is superior to any other unalienable right -- as goobers even reject the principle of unalienable rights. Subservient drones)

    As libertarians have known for a half-century; left -right = zero
    Two warring tribes, seeking to impose their own agenda by force of law. Each with their own bullshit version of the Constitution. Both authoritarian statists. Because they WANT to beleeb!

  • Bruce D||

    Guncontroltards guncontrol authoritarianism is anti- libertarian. Read the Miller decision, implicily protects possession of military weapons. Regardless if it is constitutionally protected, one has an individual natural right to own whatever gun one wants so long as one doesn't threaten others.

    Guncontrol=authoritarian statism.

  • ranrod||

    New Yorks 1,000,000 new illegal gun owners..

    REFUSED TO REGISTER THEIR MEDIA LABELED ASSAULT WEAPONS....

    One million plus new felons, all armed with scary, high capacity, media labeled assault weapons! The deadline for New York residents to register their so called "Assault Weapons" and "High" (read standard) Capacity Magazines came and went. An estimated million plus, formerly law abiding, gun owners have refused to comply with Cuomo and down state Democrat's naive belief that the NY Safe Act, passed in a so called emergency session of the New York legislature, could force free people to register their hard earned property.

    And who can blame these once lawful gun owners, with a president that picks and chooses which laws he will follow or enforce, as well as an Federal Attorney General that operates daily with a Contempt of Congress charge and gun running scandal, "Fast & Furious", hanging over his head. Why should the average New York joe, bother to follow the law, especially when it is in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States, the one true law of the land.

  • DrZ||

    What if we compromise and allow the sale of any gun but ban military style camouflage clothing to reduce the scare factor?

  • Michael Hihn||

    That would be unconstitutional.
    But a ban on all semi-automatics has been constitutional for 79 years.
    Even reaffirmed by Antonin Scalia (Heller ruling)

    Any questions?

  • dubhelix||

    Yes, I have a question.

    If "tribes are seeking to impose their own agenda by force of law", and the Supreme Court represents the final arbiter of law, why would I listen to their dictates? They have, after all, been appointed by the tribes, like some sort of legal shamans...robes and all.

    Constitution this...constitutional that. Why should I care?

    "Our constitutions purport to be established by 'the people,' and, in theory, 'all the people' consent to such government as the constitutions authorize. But this consent of 'the people' exists only in theory. It has no existence in fact. Government is in reality established by the few; and these few assume the consent of all the rest, without any such consent being actually given." ~L.

    Modern rifles are, and will be, widely available. That is an objective reality. Lots of people, perhaps millions, will continue to own, use, repair, and manufacture them, regardless of what the man behind the curtain says.

    Those folks who want modern arms will have them, and the ban will simply remove any vestige of respect they once had for the folks in the robes.

    You're arguing for a construct. For a fiction.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (laughing at the gibberish)
    The tribes are a minority
    SCOTUS swears an oath to the Constituion
    And your ilk ALWAYS winds up defending authoritarian rule.

    But this consent of 'the people' exists only in theory. It has no existence in fact. Government is in reality established by the few; and these few assume the consent of all the rest, without any such consent being actually give

    Which fascist are you quoting?
    When you get to high school, and US History, PAY ATTENTION
    The constitution was ratified by A MINORITY?
    Elections are decided by A MINORITY?
    Obama was born in KENYA?

    Anything else?

  • dubhelix||

    Putting aside for a moment the questionable ethics of majority rule, and to address your specific query...yes, elections are decided by a minority.

    Averaged voter turnout, previous 20 federal elections = 45.2%

    In this most recent case, the "winner" received votes from (implied consent from)

  • dubhelix||

    (implied consent from)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Coward. Now a confirmed fascist

    REPEAT:

    Which fascist are you quoting?
    When you get to high school, and US History, PAY ATTENTION
    The constitution was ratified by A MINORITY?
    Elections are decided by A MINORITY? (I HAVE NO RIGHT TO STAY HOME????)

    What if .... THINK now ... what if .... the consent of the governed is .... make voting OPTIONAL!!
    (gasp) YOU'D make it mandatory, drag people from their homes to polling places, , hold a gun to their heads and. "NOW VOTE."

    Why do we have no right to make voluntary associations on your Rothbardian/facist society.
    Why did even Ayn Rand ridicule your nostrums?

    In this most recent case, the "winner" received votes from (implied consent from)

    (Does he even know ... have the slightest clue ... that he directly contracted himself?)

  • Bruce D||

    Miller decision, defendant's conviction was upheld because sawed-off shotgun bore no relation to MILITIA service. Semi-autos do.

    If enough conservatives (or libertarians) are appointed to the Supreme Court, then semi-auto bans will be overturned and nullified. May be a good reason to hold one's nose and vote Republican. Otherwise, Democrats in the mold of Hihn would get in, nullify the 2nd Amendment and impose oppression.

  • Violent Sociopath||

    You know, if the closest you've ever been to law school is driving past one, you might want to take a pass on trying to interpret the Miller and Heller decisions. The idea that a categorical ban on semi-autos is consistent with either of those two decisions is underpants-on-head idiotic.

  • Sigivald||

    As one trauma surgeon explains, "the energy imparted to a human body by a high-velocity weapon is exponentially greater" than the energy imparted by a handgun

    e=mv^2, yes.

    OTOH, a 9mm pistol has nominal muzzle energy of ~400ft-lbs, with typical loads.

    .223 Remington's muzzle energy is around the order of 1,300ft-lbs.

    Three times as much is not exponential, man, at least not in the normal usage.

    (And transferred energy matters! A rifle that overpenetrates, as they tend to, doesn't transfer all that energy to making a wound cavity or damaging tissue.

    But, hey, they got a scary doctor quote of handwaving, To Ban The Bad Rifles, so that's all that matters...)

  • Sigivald||

    (Also, per Volokh's absolutely correct quote, reminds me of this literal argument I've seen from gun banning types on Facebook:

    "The AR must be banned because it's high powered and super dangerous and way more powerful than anyone should have!"

    "No, it's actually pretty low powered, barely adequate for deer, and far less than Grandpa's Hunting Rifle."

    "The AR can be banned because it's not useful for hunting, only for murders!"

    You can't argue with people who are emoting a predetermined position, because they're not making an argument, so much as feeling at things.)

  • Michael Hihn||

    because they're not making an argument, so much as feeling at things.

    Like YOUR feelings!
    US v Miller (1939)

    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.

    The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

    EXPLICITLY rejects military weapons ... RESTRICTED to weapons brought from home ... continues for a few hundred words, in great detail on 2A limits.

    Plus, NO rights can be absolute, per the definition of unalienable, because such rights can be in conflict with each other.

  • Bruce D||

    "EXPLICITLY rejects military weapons ... "

    Bullshit. Learn fucking English. "...called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

    That means arms in common use for militia service at the time of service. In this day, it would include military pattern semi-autos. It doesn't make any sense to restrict the militia to muskets or bolt actions when full-autos are in military servicem

    The more I read this guy Hihn, the more I realize the importance of appointing Supremes who will interpret this correctly. The more I read this Hihn dude, the more I think it may be necessary to hold one's nose and vote for Republicans who will appoint and confirm pro-gun judges who will issue accurate interpretations. Otherwise, the Hihn types will institute gun-control authoritarian statist oppression.

  • Bruce D||

    "NO rights can be absolute, per the definition of unalienable, because such rights can be in conflict with each other."

    Self-contradictory jibberish fabrication. Rigjts do not rationally contradict. Otherwise, they're not rights. If rights are not absolute, then one could rationally infringe the rights of others, which is a contradiction of rights and rights would have no meaning or power. That's the reason authoritarian guncontrol statist oppressors attack the absoluteness of rights - because they want to infringe them so they can impose authoritarian statist tyranny upon everyone.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    The troll keeps trying to peddle the notion of affirmative rights.

    No such thing exists of course and the troll isn't the least bit capable of proving otherwise but he keeps on trolling it because that's what trolls do.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    No, it's actually pretty low powered, barely adequate for deer, and far less than Grandpa's Hunting Rifle.

    I don't believe we're discussing ways of preventing mass deer shootings.

    If you had to go into a gun fight against humans, would you pick an AR-15 chambered in 5.56 NATO or Grandpa's Hunting Rifle, bolt-action in 30-06?

  • Michael Hihn||

    I don't believe we're discussing ways of preventing mass deer shootings.

    We're discussing the Constitution. Or should be

  • Michael Hihn||

    Also, per Volokh's absolutely correct quote,...

    ... which was dismissed even by NRA-shill Sullum.

  • David Nolan Michael Hihn||

    The only assault weapon here is in my pants.

  • Michael Hihn||

    But too tiny to be a threat.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Thank God for Greasonable.

    don't have to read your shit nomo'

  • DWC||

    I don't know, but given the choice between being shot in, say, the shoulder with a 223 at 3000 f/s and a half ounce musket ball travelling 1200 f/s I think I would choose the 223.

  • DWC||

    Or worse yet, a 12 gauge shotgun slug.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    And if muskets had the rate of fire and magazine capacity of semiauto rifles, that would be relevant.

  • Michael Hihn||

    How?

  • eno.river.bend||

    You do know there are lots of semi-auto shotguns around, right?

    12-gauge slugs are around 0.690". The balls for a American M1795 musket are ... around 0.690".

  • CuriousKevMo||

    I think they know full well that the distinctions are non-sensical. In fact, they'll be using that as the argument for step two - to ban all guns.

    1. Ban "Assault weapons"
    2. Ban all other guns because there really isn't any difference you see

  • Michael Hihn||

    THE SKY IS FALLING ... THE SKY IS FALLING! The "difference" is something I like to call The Constitution of the United States. Ignore Chicken Little. Educate yourself. THINK for yourself.

    US v Miller (1939))

    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.

    The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

    EXPLICITLY rejects military weapons ... RESTRICTED to weapons brought from home. Continues for a few hundred words, with more historical sources on 2A limits --- Reaffirmed by Scalia (Heller).

    Anything else?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano remains really mad that handgun ban he desperately wants isn't going through.

  • Bruce D||

    Yeah, here's something else.

    "EXPLICITLY rejects military weapons ... "

    Bullshit. Learn fucking English. "...called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

    That means arms in common use for militia service at the time of service. In this day, it would include military pattern semi-autos. It doesn't make any sense to restrict the militia to muskets or bolt actions when full-autos are in military service. The context of the paragraph is militia service, a form of military service, hence protects possession of military-patterned weapons. Checkmate.

    Please note the fundamental dishonesty of Mr. Hihn's assertion's. That is indicative of the fundamental dishonesty of the anti-gun cause.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    "the .223 rifles that are often labeled 'assault weapons' have a much lower muzzle energy than familiar hunting rifles such as the .30-06."

    Familiar hunting rifles aren't semiauto and don't have 30+ round magazines. The only semiautos I know of in 30-06 are old M1-Garands from WW2 and the Remington 750 that jams every round. Neither has a detachable magazine.

    An AR-10 chambered in 30-06 (not sure if that chambering is even possible, but if it was) would have far more destructive power than an ordinary hunting rifle, despite possibly having a shorter barrel and thus less ME and velocity.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Thanks. But the new standard is .... "Don't Tread On My Narrative."
    Ignorance of the Constitution seems to have infected this once-libertarian web site.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Should make clear that I oppose assault weapon bans.

    Just pushing back against the idea that ME is a useless metric for destructive power. If there were going to be regulations, it would make sense for them to be based on rate of fire and ME, though measuring the maximum ROF or ME of a firearm is problematic because so much depends on the particular ammo and particular user.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Thanks. But none of that has anything to do with the Constitution either ,,, for 79 years now.
    And, of course, no right can be absolute over any other right, because they're all absolute unto themselves.

    How do we resolve conflicts between two absolute rights. (other than laughably denying there is no such thing)
    Do you know the answer?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano remains too stupid to specify how two rights conflict and how they conflict when it comes to firearms.

  • Bruce D||

    "once-libertarian web site.."

    Once-libertarian person. You show your own ignorance of the Constitution.

    As I recall, Mr. Hihn was a member of the "reformist" faction when he was a libertarian. Shows what happens to libertarian "reformists" - they "progress" to anti-gun statism.

  • Ron||

    don't know what your talking about I can get 30 round magz for my no jambing 30-06 Remington I choose not to since it interferes with my targeting.

  • CaveMan||

    Browning sells a semi auto hunting rifle with a detachable magazine.

  • Chasman1965||

    The Remington 750 does have a detachable magazine, and they can be easily obtained with up to ten round magazines.

    An AR-10 can't be had in .30-06--too long. A few companies make stretched AR-10s that can shoot .300 Winchester magnum (and can also be had in .30-06).

    An AR-10 in .30-06 would be no more destructive than a .30-06 BAR.

  • Barry Gold||

    "Adding a folding or adjustable stock to these rifles transforms them from legitimate firearms into proscribed "assault weapons"

    Perhaps we should specifically ban folding or detachable stocks. Not because they are "assault weapons," but because you get the effective(*) range of a rifle in a concealable weapon.

    Mind you, 3-D printers make bans on almost any gun of questionable usefulness. (Well, except that the good stuff you buy at a sporting-goods store is rather more accurate and will shoot more rounds than that gun made of plastic.)

    (*) More important than how far a bullet will travel is how far you can hit a target with it. A typical pistol is pretty useless at 25 ft.--you might hit a man-sized target with it in a teacup grip with a minute to take aim and steady yourself. But if you're trying to kill a whole bunch of people, fugeddaboutit!

  • Michael Cook||

    Back in 1996 my wife and I actually witnessed an act of violence on a cruise ship maybe 20 miles off the coast of Cuba. Four Cuban-Americans in two Cessna SkyMasters had dropped pro-democracy leaflets on Havana and were racing back to Florida over our boat.

    A Mig 23 caught up to them very close to our ship. Bang, bang, two burning airplanes fluttering into the sea, four dead men. Now I am a Vietnam vet and I was actually in the business of shooting at Migs. There is a long gun in my gun safe with a smart electronic optic on it that would actually have had a chance at that close range of putting a hole in that cowardly sucker's airplane.

    Not shooting him down, of course. But maybe putting a little hole that the mechanics could point out to him later.

    Now that would have been a small pro-democracy victory! Maybe I am still buzzed up from watching Dunkirk.

  • TxJack 112||

    You have to love these morons. Oh yes, if I shoot you with my AR it will do much more damage than if I shoot you with my 41 magnum. Seriously? An AR may have a higher velocity, but it is still only a .22 caliber bullet. Getting shot with a 308 or 30.06 deer rifle will do a hell of lot more damage which is why both are used as sniper rifles. One shot, one kill. These idiots think the cosmetics of a gun make it a military weapon. I wonder if they think wearing camouflage clothing and combat boots makes you a soldier?

  • Michael Cook||

    With the right bullet, a .44 mag within five yards out-penetrates a .308 NATO round much less the puny .223. I'll take a .44 mag 1892 lever action with a mil-spec red dot on top for CQB any day. Don't waste ammo. Make the hostiles invest in really good body armor.

  • TxJack 112||

    These claims are made by people who do not understand guns, have never fired a gun and simply regurgitate whatever they read or hear that supports their point of view. The most recent issue, the muzzle velocity of rifles vs. handguns, is the best example of just how clueless they are. When Lawrence O'Donnell and others attempted to attack the idea of arming teachers, they tried to claim a handgun is useless against a rifle because the rifle bullet has a higher fps. Of course anyone who owns a gun and uses them knows this is total garbage. As for the destructive capability of an AR vs other rifles, the author is 100% correct and again points out the stupidity of anti gun zealots. A 223 is a 22 caliber bullet, the fps is irrelevant if compared to a 308, 30-06 or even a 45 ACP. Larger bullets do more damage. My 41 mag has a lower fps than my AR but will do 10x the damage to anything it hits.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    Maybe I'm just cynical , but I'm betting that Feinstein's bill exempts the Iver Johnson M1 Carbine and the Ruger Mini-14 because a large number of them are already in private hands and including them in the ban would only increase opposition to her bill. No doubt gun control advocates regard an assault weapon ban as the thin edge of the wedge to be enacted now, and used as justification for more comprehensive bans later.

  • James Pollock||

    "No doubt gun control advocates regard an assault weapon ban as the thin edge of the wedge to be enacted now, and used as justification for more comprehensive bans later."

    No doubt. No evidence, either.
    "Gun control advocates" is a broad category. It does include people who say "nobody should have a gun", but, well, they talk that way but they don't have the numbers. It also includes people who say "yeah, but if I have to choose between the right to possess the ability to kill a bunch of people one-after-the-other, and that murderous oaf over there having the right to possess the ability to kill me, or someone I care about, or just random people... well, the choice isn't difficult."

    I was taught to handle a weapon safely and responsibly. If you are a person who handles your weapon(s) safely and responsibly, I'm not interested in interfering with your choice to continuing to do so. But people who DON'T handle weapons safely or responsibly? I have less concern for protecting them, and more for protecting the people around them, and I think the law should, too.

  • Melting Snowflake||

    I can't agree more. Focusing on one gun over another solely because of looks is ridiculous. A semi-auto is a semi-auto. If you can empty a 30-round magazine in under 10 seconds it doesn't matter if the Mini-14 has a wood or composite stock. NEITHER are fit for public possession. The NRA and the Reagan administration did the right thing passing the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. It didn't even ban possession of fully automatic weapons outright, but added common-sense checks on purchasers and sellers of these guns. It only banned the manufacture. The same steps should be taken to ensure semi-autos, no matter what color, remain in responsible gun owner's hands. Thank you for providing facts and knowledge to a knee-jerk population. #MAGA!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online