Category Archives: 2nd Amendment

Leaked DOJ Memo Argues For Registration, Confiscation

Obama has said many, many times that he doesn’t want to take American’s guns, that the Second Amendment is settled law, and other such bromides designed to psychologically disarm gun owners. He has even went so far as to pose for a staged photo depicting him skeet shooting with a shotgun, and trotting out VP Joe Biden to urge women to fire a double-barrel shotgun in the air to ward off attackers (a tough maneuver to pull off while jogging in a public park). Yet, through it all, we gun owners have known his real intent was to strip us of our Second Amendment rights, if possible, and confiscate the firearms of all Americans. That’s his background, after all, and his averred agenda when he speaks behind closed doors, or believes himself to be.

So it comes as no surprise that a leaked Department of Justice memo – probably written by some mid-level apparatchik – makes the old bumper sticker argument of “registration today, confiscation tomorrow”.

This story is actually several days old. It first appeared on the NRA site, at InfoWars and … that was about it. Not a word from the vaunted Fox News Network, not a peep from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, and certainly a deafening silence from the mainstream media. And, really, why should they mention it? Obama lying is not news. Obama having a hidden, anti-American agenda is not news. Obama seeking to gut the Constitution is not news …

But today, the New American – a major outlet for conservative news and opinion – finally weighed in on the leaked DOJ memo. Maybe this portends greater dissemination of the story. Maybe not.

The original memo, as it appears at the NRA site, contains nuggets such as these:

… in order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession. An exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact. The program would need to be coupled with an extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. With an exemption the impact of the restrictions would only be felt when the magazines degrade or when they no longer are compatible with guns in circulation. This would take decades to realize.

… since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective.

Again, the positions taken in the memo are not newsworthy. Government wants our guns? Obama is lying? So what else is new?

Nor is this “the” plan but, rather, an obsequious little boiler-plate screed produced, no doubt, with the help of a great many taxpayer dollars, and designed to show superiors that the author is fully on board and worthy of a promotion of some kind. It’s probably little more than a dim reflection of what the author’s superiors actually intend.

One feature that fascinates me are the multiple references to buy-backs and turn-ins. At some point, I believe, The Regime will make a push to get gun owners to either sell their guns to the government for pennies on the dollar, or to just surrender them for the sake of the Homeland. And why not? Totalitarian regimes throughout history have been able to con citizens out of their weaponry.

Caption: "Comrades, Turn In Your Weapons" - a 1918 communist propaganda poster from Russia.

Caption: “Comrades, Turn In Your Weapons” – a 1918 communist propaganda poster from Russia.

The other aspect of this story that fascinates me is how the media ignores it. Then again, in the words of my friend Tiberius, “Obama could start sacrificing virgins right there in the Oval Office, and the media wouldn’t give a shit. Worse than that, they’d help dispose of the bodies. And even if they aired live footage of Obama sacrificing virgins, liberals and welfare bums could care less.”

Alabama Mayor: Disarm Citizens During Crisis

Democrat Guntersville, Alabama Mayor Leigh Dollar wants your guns if a crisis breaks out.

Her call for forcible confiscation of firearms by police has not gone over well in Guntersville, a town of 8197 near the northern tip of the state. Leigh’s ordinance, she argues, would give police the authority to disarm “unruly” residents in the event of a weather disaster or other catastrophe. Her thinking, according to news reports, is to give the police the ability to protect themselves. Residents and nonresidents alike rightly see it as a backdoor attack on the Second Amendment.

Here’s video of a “State of The City” speech Mayor Dollar gave in January, 2013:

I’ve been unable to find out much about Mayor Dollar’s background, apart from the fact she’s a Democrat – supposedly a “blue dog”. But as Rush Limbaugh points out, a blue dog Democrat is still a Democrat. Watching the video, she strikes me as having the uptight, authoritarian, quasi-parental affect of a grade school principal.

One thing is for sure: her proposed ordinance has not gone over well in the South. Organizations are already focusing money on removing her from the Mayor’s office this year. When it comes to their guns, Southerners will not allow themselves to be Leighed.

Colorado To Ban Mags, MagPul To Give Colorado The Finger

Ah, Colorado …the Centennial State. Home of the fictional, animated town of South Park. A place where one can smoke pot at will, and where one will soon be able to marry another of the same gender. It would seem anything goes there … except, of course, gun ownership.

This past Monday, a quartet of gun controlled laws introduced by Democrats (who else) in the Colorado House passed by a wide margin. They are expected to encounter some resistance in the Senate but, if the laws pass that hurdle, the liberal Democrat Governor, a fellow with the unlikely name of John Hickenlooper, will doubtless sign them into law.

Each law accomplishes a different thing:

  • Bans guns on campus
  • Requires background checks for all gun transactions
  • Imposes a fee on gun buyers to cover the costs of their background checks, and
  • Bans magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds

Some laws are more vile than others. For example, background checks on prospective gun buyers doesn’t seem so bad; and the fee for a background check is pretty minimal. Where these laws become a problem is when one individual wants to sell a firearm to another. There will be complicated forms aplenty to complete, and also a background check. Inherited firearms may also be affected. And while fees may be minimal at first, they are sure to grow.

A statewide ban of firearms on college campuses is, in the minds of many (myself included), pretty stupid on two levels. Why should one abandon their Constitutional Rights when enrolling in college courses? More importantly, the creation of “gun-free zones”, defended by unarmed minimum-wage security guards, only encourages attacks by crazed active shooters.

Then there is the ban on high-capacity magazines …

The current mantra is, “Why would anyone need a 30-round magazine?” Well, gosh, that makes sense, eh? So government limits magazine capacity to 15 rounds. Everything is peachy until an active shooter, armed with a pair of 15-round Glocks guns down multiple victims, probably at a college or other “gun-free zone” where the victims can’t shoot back. Now the mantra becomes, “Oh! These horrible 15-round magazines! Why does anybody need a 15/10/7/5 – round magazine? Y’know, come to think of it, we should limit magazine capacity to exactly one round of ammunition …”

Indeed, limiting magazine capacity to an arbitrary number of rounds is a slippery slope. Democrats and other swine understand this perfectly. It is nothing less than incrementalism, a manifestation of the old fable of the frog being boiled in a pot of water by increasing the temperature one degree each day. Democrats and other swine love incrementalism. It has taken them very far in the past five decades.

One wonders if Colorado’s proposed ban on high-capacity magazines extends to former UC Ethics Professor Ward Churchill who, a few years ago, struck a Che Guevara-esque pose with an AK47 as he lambasted America as a force for evil in the world.

Will loony Colorado Marxists still be permitted high-capacity magazines under the proposed ban? Not if they're fomenting communist insurrection. Just ask former UC Prof. Ward Churchill.

Will loony Colorado Marxists still be permitted high-capacity magazines under the proposed ban? Not if they’re fomenting communist insurrection. Just ask former UC Prof. Ward Churchill.

Enter MagPul. For those of you who don’t know, MagPul produces what are simply the finest AR15 magazines – the PMAGs – in the world. Like their military and police counterparts, they hold 30 rounds of ammunition. Everybody who owns an AR covets PMAGS, as well as other fine accessories – sights, foregrips, buttstocks, etc – designed and manufactured by MagPul. So MagPul, which is located in Colorado, brings a lot of money into that increasingly benighted state.

Of course, Colorado Democrats view MagPul as a purveyor of pure evil.

MagPul has announced it will relocate its operations to another state if the bill passes:

If Magpul does leave it will effect around 600 jobs and take away about $85 million from the Colorado’s economy. Magpul directly employs 200 people and supports 400 supply-chain jobs.

Not that Democrats, in Colorado or anywhere else, care about jobs (except, of course, for paper-pusher jobs in government, awarded to cronies, campaign donors and whatnot).

No, 600 less jobs held by MagPul employees in Colorado probably means (at least) 1200 less Republicans living and voting in Colorado. I can’t imagine an Obama Zombie lasting very long on the assembly line at MagPul, nor can I imagine Republican MagPul employees having Obama Zombie spouses. They’ll all move, taking their votes and political influence with them to the plant’s new facilities in Nevada. Its win-win as far as Colorado Democrats are concerned. And if you think liberal Democrats don’t think in these terms, guess again. This is exactly how they think in Illinois, where Democrats want to establish a hegemonic lock on power, a Thousand Year Democrat Reich in which conservatives are weeded out of the political gene pool.

In the meantime, the Suarez Group of Companies, a firm that sells fine tactical equipment and training (and which has, as its motto, “Doing Bad Things To Bad People Since 1995″), has launched “Operation Colorado Freedom“. By offering high-capacity magazines to Colorado residents at incredible discount prices, they hope to flood Colorado with a hundred-year supply of PMAGs and other high capacity magazines, rendering the proposed ban … pretty pointless, actually. Props to Gabe Suarez for a smart tactic; but really, this should come as no surprise from a fellow who makes a living teaching tactics.

 

 

Chicago Police Chief: 2nd Amendment Supporters “Guilty Of Corruption”

I just spent two hours jumping through hoops to get our cars licensed in our adopted state down here in Dixie. Actually, it was a longer process than that. See, Angie and I first had to get new driver’s licenses; to do so, we had to present our Social Security Cards. Unfortunately, Angie had laminated hers years ago … a no-go in our new state. So, after that rigamarole, and the additional rigarmarole of transferring insurance, and getting certified copies of other documents, we made it to the courthouse where, in addition to filling out all sorts of paperwork, our cars were inspected by a Deputy.

The cost of the new plates was literally a fraction of what they would have been in our quondam home, the LOL. But – after showing the Deputy my retirement badge so I could speak frankly – I observed aloud, “Damn! You guys make it kinda hard to register a vehicle, eh?”

He laughed, and confided, “Well (he pronounced it ‘wail’), we make it kinda hard to discourage the riff-raff from moving here from Illinois.”

A prime example of Illinois riff-raff would be Chicago Police Chief Garry F. McCarthy. Over the weekend, this sad excuse for a cop opined that Second Amendment supporters are guilty of corruption and of endangering public safety:

The embattled police chief — who previously blamed “government-sponsored racism” and Sarah Palin for Chicago’s gun-related violence, and who once said the Second Amendment itself was a threat to the nation’s security, according to a report by Red State — also said judges and lawmakers should focus more on public opinion polls when considering constitutional matters, the ISRA reported.

On Sunday, Superintendent McCarthy also said the Second Amendment does, in fact, allow for governments and police agencies to impose mandatory liability insurance requirements on gun owners, and that GPS tracking devices can be lawfully affixed to firearms sold to civilians, according to the ISRA.

From my long experience in law enforcement, I have learned there are two kinds of police chiefs: those who reach the top through dedication and honorable conduct, and those who are placed there by the politicians they have ingratiated themselves to. My guess would be that Chief McCarthy represents the latter, the sort of fellow who has worn knee-pads his entire career.

Place GPS devices on individual firearms, so the police can track them? Either Chicago hires delusional schizophrenics as police chiefs, or McCarthy’s ravings are just another example of his sucking up to his political masters. No sane or reasonable person would suggest such a thing, let alone rant about it on a Chicagoland talk show.

Make no mistake, McCarthy’s bosses – including that illustrious ballerina and veteran of the Obama White House, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel – really do believe such things: that firearms are evil, that those who own them are worse than evil, and that it is the responsibility of Government to punish not just those who own guns, but those who would even consider owning a gun. Such irrational beliefs are prima facie evidence of a severe mental disorder … or should be, anywhere besides the LOL.

The press often refers to Chief McCarthy as “embattled”, probably because of his Tourette’s Syndrome-like propensity for blurting out inappropriate things at the worst possible moments. You get the feeling he’s too damn crazy even for the likes of Mayor Rahm Emanuel. If so, he may be retiring soon.

He should probably stay north of the Mason-Dixon line when he retires. I doubt they’d give him a set of license plates if he moved south.

Proposed Washington State Law: Sheriff Must Inspect Homes Of “Assault Weapon” Owners

This is a new low. In Washington State, leftist lawmakers are considering a law that would require periodic inspections of the homes of those owning so-called “assault weapons”.

So much for the Fourth Amendment, at least in the Evergreen State.

Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?

As Orwellian as that sounds, it isn’t hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia.

We’re seeing a subtle shift on the part of the anti-gun loons in these not-so-United States. In years past, the guns themselves – in a bizarre form of animism unique to those on the Left – were the agents of evil. Now, however, those owning guns are painted as extreme, crazy, wicked. As such, gun owners don’t deserve the same rights as other citizens. They must be punished and suppressed by any means necessary.

How many times in recent months have we heard some liberal media propagandist chanting things like, “Why would anyone need a thirty-round magazine?” To the forces of the Left, this is a rhetorical question, designed to imply that the only reason anyone would want a thirty-round magazine is to use it to massacre innocent schoolkids or moviegoers. Therefore, anyone with a thirty-round magazine is a maniac, a butcher, a mass-killer waiting their chance. And it should go without saying such people should be closely monitored, controlled and, ultimately, eliminated from polite society.

The fountainhead of this sort of in-group, out-group thinking is none other than Barack Hussein Obama. A major characteristic of Chicago Politics is to paint political or ideological opponents not just as wrong or mistaken, but as malevolent monsters worthy of confinement or destruction. Obama has raised the art of demonization of opponents to Hitlerian levels.

Danny Westneat, the liberal author of the above-linked article, is somewhat horrified at the idea of warrantless searches, as are other liberal Washingtonians he mentions. That the proposed law is so Draconian as to engender horror even in liberals does not bode well for passage. But the intent, the mindset of those who would introduce such a repressive, Orwellian law remains even if the bill is defeated.

The cult of liberalism has been around for a long time now, biding its time, waiting for the right opportunity. The reelection of Obama, coupled with a high-profile mass shooting by a madman who should have been in a padded cell (if not for liberal laws and policies) have emboldened the Left to go for broke. Either they’ll go down to electoral defeat eventually, or the social and political fractures we’ve seen developing in America will break wide open.

In any event, we’re going to be dealing with those who would dehumanize us gun owners, and strip us of our rights, for some years to come.

 

NRA Winning The “Influence Battle” Over Gun Control

Here’s a collection of facts that has to have ol’ Skeet-Shootin’ Barry apoplectic: According to an article in Forbes, surveys by Appinions shows the NRA is exerting much more influence over public attitude toward guns than liberal gun-grabbers, or even the White House:

Forbes Insights and Appinions looked at the data for the week prior to the Sandy Hook tragedy and trended the data over the subsequent 5 weeks to determine the ebb and flow over the gun control debate. We found that the NRA and the pro-gun rights voices are winning the influence battle and will continue to be strong and more influential if the pro gun control voice remains fragmented. On the flip side, the pro gun control voice could certainly gain influence if they establish a more united voice.

Whether the NRA’s greater power to sway public opinion will be enough to overcome diktats being contemplated by the Obama regime remains to be seen. Most Americans do not support the idea of socialized health care, yet the Democrats jammed it through anyway. The current regime has a penchant for pursuing its agenda, regardless of what the folks in flyover country think.

I was amused by the release earlier today of Obama firing a shotgun – allegedly, while “skeet shooting”. A couple of things struck me as odd: First, that the shotgun is being fired horizontally. I’ve shot skeet once or twice, and I recall the clay pigeon generally traveling upwards. To be fair, Obama might have been shooting at a clay pigeon as it came down. The other thing that strikes me as odd is the textbook-clear muzzle blast erupting from the business end … and also, seemingly, from the side of the shotgun. To capture such an image would require high-speed film (or chip, I suppose). Catching the muzzle blast with a camera is a daunting thing to do. Obviously, the propaganda team in the West Wing took great pains to get a perfect image.

skeet

I’m not sure what to think about the gas erupting from the starboard side of the upper barrel, just behind the front sight. Is there such a thing as a ported over-and-under shotgun? I’ve never heard of such a thing but, then again, skeet and fine shotguns aren’t really my bag.

Really, this is a comical image. Seeing Obama firing a shotgun – in a vain attempt to convince NRA types he doesn’t actually have a problem with firearms – is about like Hitler embracing a rabbi, or polishing a menorah, to show he doesn’t actually have a problem with Jews.

Pose with guns for all the carefully-composed photographs you want, Mister President. You’re not fooling and/or influencing anybody.

Mamet: Hands Off My Gun

Playwright, essayist, screenwriter and film director David Mamet seems the least likely person to take on the anti-gun establishment in America. Yet, not only does Mamet take on leftist gun-grabbers, he utterly kicks their asses – albeit, in a hoity-toity way.

In one of the best-written, best-reasoned pro-gun essays I’ve ever read, David Mamet describes why people with a leftist bent, particularly communists and other far-leftists, are obsessed with taking guns from ordinary, law-abiding citizens. A couple of quotes from the article:

Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death …

… The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.

Mamet brilliantly deconstructs the left’s mania to disarm the citizenry. Whether his analysis is applied to Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China or Obamunist America, it slices like a razor through all the “think of the children” crap we have been seeing all over the media. Give it a read.

Number Of Sheriffs Refusing To Enforce New Gun Laws “Snowballs”

Would-be gun grabbers such as Senator Dianne Feinstein, who plans to introduce legislation today to ban virtually all modern firearms, have run into a huge snag: Who, pray tell, will actually grab the guns once they are banned?

An increasing number of county Sheriffs in the U.S. will not.

From Florida to California, a growing number of the nation’s sheriffs are standing up to gun control measures proposed by both the administration and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

Many law enforcement officials have written letters to President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden voicing their concerns over what they believe is an effort to infringe upon the Second Amendment.

My own view is that Feinstein’s efforts are doomed, yet again, to failure. She introduces a renewal of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban every year. So far, her efforts have failed every year. Currently a host of Democrats, their black little hearts gladdened by both Obama’s reelection and a few high-profile mass shootings by maniacs, feel they can really pull it off this time. But the irresistible force they believe they hold is about to meet the immovable object in the House, the GOP contingent.

Assuming the Obama regime actually passed a bill banning ownership of modern firearms, it would remain mere words-on-paper in many “red” states. If a law is passed, but nobody is willing to enforce it, is it even a law? County by county, state by state, nullification would render a renewed AWB meaningless across wide tracts of these not-so-United States.

Texas Sheriff Says He Will Not Enforce “Unconstitutional” Gun Laws

He may not be the lone voice in the law enforcement community, and he may not be the first, but Collin County, Texas Sheriff Terry Box speaks for many county and local agencies when he says his department will not enforce Draconian gun control laws that are unconstitutional on their face:

In light of recent events I feel I need to make a public statement of my views on this subject. As the Sheriff of Collin County, Texas, I have for the past 28 years served to protect and keep safe all citizens of our county, recognizing the trust placed in me with this profoundly important responsibility.

Unfortunately, the recent surge in the numbers of innocent victims who have died at the hands of unstable criminals has prompted politicians in Washington to seek to pass laws that would seriously erode the constitutional rights of innocent and law abiding citizens.

Neither I, nor any of my deputies, will participate in the enforcement of laws that violate our precious constitutional rights, including our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

As long as I remain Sheriff of Collin County, I will not participate in the actions of misguided politicians who seek to impede our citizen’s right to all of the privileges afforded by our Constitution.

Respectfully,

Terry G. Box

Sheriff, Collin County Texas

Although I haven’t been posting in this last week due to my retirement and immediate relocation to a “red” state, I’ve been following the furor over gun control on radio, in print media and on television. I managed to see a replay of Obama’s anemic anti-gun spiel, in which he used children as propaganda tools in the same way that other totalitarian dictators throughout history have done. I also heard Rush Limbaugh’s program late last week, in which he opined that Obama’s proposals were “reasonable” – at which time, I immediate turned him off, vowing never to listen to him again.

The vibe I’m getting is that the big anti-gun push by government pretty much petered out. Maybe it was the realization, by our friends in government, that there are simply too many guns for them to ever hope to confiscate. Maybe it was their realization that making an attempt at this, except in liberal-infested states like New York and, yes, my former state of Illinois, the LOL, would produce (ahem) widespread noncompliance and probably (ahem, ahem) some level of civil disobedience as well. Maybe it was the massive surge in NRA memberships. Or maybe it is LEOs across the country telling inside-the-beltway hoplophobes to piss up a rope. Whatever the cause or causes, even the most rabid supporters of gun bans have admitted none of the laws they are proposing stand a ghost of a chance of actually passing. And Obama – contrary to my earlier prediction – has stood down on issuing executive orders banning or reclassifying semiautomatic firearms. So, the big push to ban guns has fizzled. For now.

This should not be interpreted as the bastards waving a white flag on the issue of gun control … or whatever sly, friendly-sounding term they’re using today. (Come to think of it, liberal swine from the top to the bottom of the food chain, from Obama to Chris Matthews, aren’t calling it “gun control” any more; all of a sudden, laws designed to disarm the American public are called “gun safety laws”.) No, subversives like U.S. Rep Charlie Rangel (D-NY) will continue to make snide remarks about how “… some of the southern areas have cultures that we have to overcome” when it comes to gun control. In other words, what Rangel really means, is that only ignorant white trash racists own guns. There will be more shootings that the media will exploit to push the government’s agenda to emasculate or eliminate the Second Amendment; and every time one of these events occurs, expect wall-to-wall anti-gun agitprop, and the attendant panic buying by those who either don’t have a firearm, or feel they don’t have enough yet.

If you’re reading this, want to own a gun, but don’t: Wait for the current wave of panic buying to subside, and prices to come back down. The same rule probably applies to those who have a weapon or two, but want more. The cardinal rule is to buy low, and sell (if you wish) high.

You can’t buy low during a panic.

“You Don’t Need An AR15, It’s Too Dangerous”

By Jorge Amselle

(Appearing in The Daily Caller)

 

Sadly, so called “assault rifles” are getting a lot of negative press lately and are being subjected to a great deal of misinformation. This is not just coming from the usual anti-gun crowd, whom one would expect to lack knowledge about firearms and how they function, but also from supposedly knowledgeable gun owners and hunters, some of whom favor “reasonable” controls on firearms freedoms. Here are a few of the fallacies.

Why do you need that? 

I need an AR primarily for self defense. Could I use another gun for self defense? Of course I could and the AR may not be the best firearm to use in all defensive situations. I could use a shotgun or a pistol, I could use a baseball bat or a knife, I could use a tennis racket, a golf club, my bare hands, or I could just try playing possum.

It is not a question of what I use to defend myself but my right and desire to have the best possible tool for the job at my disposal. I want a semi-automatic rifle with an adequate capacity magazine for the same reason the police want them; to be able to quickly and accurately engage multiple assailants should the need arise.

The caliber is too weak to use for hunting. 

The AR is traditionally chambered in the 5.56x45mm NATO (interchangeable with the .223 Remington caliber) cartridge. The U.S. Military has been using this round as their primary rifle caliber for 50 years, through many wars and other interventions. If it was not effective we would not still have it. As with any firearm, the weight and type of bullet can be easily changed to deliver better performance and while not all loadings may be ideal for hunting, many are used on deer, feral hogs, coyote, and other game animals.

That does not even include the fact that the AR is the single most versatile rifle available. It can be converted to a muzzle loader for black powder, a crossbow for archery hunting, an air rifle, and can be adapted to fire over a dozen different rifle and pistol calibers. The design makes it easy to install optics and scopes, the collapsible stock allows the length to be adjusted so different statured shooters can comfortably use the same rifle. All of these features are why it is so popular.

It is not suitable for home defense.

Some have argued that a 5.56mm AR is bad for home defense because the round will over penetrate and pass through walls, endangering other occupants or neighbors. Tell that to police SWAT team that are increasingly switching from 9mm (pistol caliber) sub-machineguns to 5.56mm ARs exactly because they over penetrate less than the 9mm especially with proper ammunition selection. If over penetration is a serious concern then use a shotgun with bird shot. At close ranges this can be extremely effective. Others argue that a long gun is too unwieldy for home defense and going around corners. Ironically a shotgun has long been considered an ideal home defense firearm, not to mention that “hunting down” home intruders is not really advisable anyways. Better to barricade yourself and call the police.

These guns are too dangerous for people to own.

Ignoring the fact that semi-automatic rifles are used to commit only a tiny fraction of all gun crimes and that gun crimes overall have been declining for the past 20 years, the AR and other similar rifles are no more dangerous than any other firearm. The AR is semi-automatic and fires once each time the trigger is depressed, like a double-action revolver, or any pistol, or many other rifles and shotguns.

If you believe that the AR is too dangerous to own then there is no rational limit to what firearms you will find too dangerous next. Politicians have attacked firearms as too dangerous because they are too small and easy to conceal, too cheap and easy for poor people to buy, too accurate and usable and sniper weapons, too powerful and usable against vehicles. The list of “too dangerous” can easily be expanded to cover most any firearm and making every firearm “too dangerous” is exactly the real agenda.

—————————————————-

Jorge Amselle is a certified firearms instructor and writer covering all aspects of the industry from military and law enforcement firearms and training to the shooting sports. His youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/amselle.