Edited to add: I can’t thank you all enough for interacting with this post. I am actually surprised that it’s become this popular. This is the first time more than ten people have read anything I’ve written here. I’m probably going to turn off commenting soon because everything that can be said already has been. In general, I’d like to point out that this is an opinion piece. I wrote it on a 15 minute coffee break and posted it unedited. It’s raw, and that’s the whole point. The tone, the language, and the style are intentional. This was written for people like my mostly conservative Army buddies who will never click an article that is titled “Gun control is your friend”, and tend to assume those who support such legislation have never seen a gun before. I’m not a professional writer, nor a particularly prolific blogger until about three days ago. I’m just a person trying to sort it out like everybody else. Thank you for stopping by. I really do appreciate every one of you. Please find us on FaceBook.BCMCarryHandleAR-15-3

America, can we talk? Let’s just cut the shit for once and actually talk about what’s going on without blustering and pretending we’re actually doing a good job at adulting as a country right now. We’re not. We’re really screwing this whole society thing up, and we have to do better. We don’t have a choice. People are dying. At this rate, it’s not if your kids, or mine, are involved in a school shooting, it’s when. One of these happens every 60 hours on average in the US. If you think it can’t affect you, you’re wrong. Dead wrong. So let’s talk.

I’ll start. I’m an Army veteran. I like M-4’s, which are, for all practical purposes, an AR-15, just with a few extra features that people almost never use anyway. I’d say at least 70% of my formal weapons training is on that exact rifle, with the other 30% being split between various and sundry machineguns and grenade launchers. My experience is pretty representative of soldiers of my era. Most of us are really good with an M-4, and most of us like it at least reasonably well, because it is an objectively good rifle. I was good with an M-4, really good. I earned the Expert badge every time I went to the range, starting in Basic Training. This isn’t uncommon. I can name dozens of other soldiers/veterans I know personally who can say the exact same thing. This rifle is surprisingly easy to use, completely idiot-proof really, has next to no recoil, comes apart and cleans up like a dream, and is light to carry around. I’m probably more accurate with it than I would be with pretty much any other weapon in existence. I like this rifle a lot. I like marksmanship as a sport. When I was in the military, I enjoyed combining these two things as often as they’d let me.

With all that said, enough is enough. My knee jerk reaction is to consider weapons like the AR-15 no big deal because it is my default setting. It’s where my training lies. It is my normal, because I learned how to fire a rifle IN THE ARMY. You know, while I may only have shot plastic targets on the ranges of Texas, Georgia, and Missouri, that’s not what those weapons were designed for, and those targets weren’t shaped like deer. They were shaped like people. Sometimes we even put little hats on them. You learn to take a gut shot, “center mass”, because it’s a bigger target than the head, and also because if you maim the enemy soldier rather than killing him cleanly, more of his buddies will come out and get him, and you can shoot them, too. He’ll die of those injuries, but it’ll take him a while, giving you the chance to pick off as many of his compadres as you can. That’s how my Drill Sergeant explained it anyway. I’m sure there are many schools of thought on it. The fact is, though, when I went through my marksmanship training in the US Army, I was not learning how to be a competition shooter in the Olympics, or a good hunter. I was being taught how to kill people as efficiently as possible, and that was never a secret.

As an avowed pacifist now, it turns my stomach to even type the above words, but can you refute them? I can’t. Every weapon that a US Army soldier uses has the express purpose of killing human beings. That is what they are made for. The choice rifle for years has been some variant of what civilians are sold as an AR-15. Whether it was an M-4 or an M-16 matters little. The function is the same, and so is the purpose. These are not deer rifles. They are not target rifles. They are people killing rifles. Let’s stop pretending they’re not.

With this in mind, is anybody surprised that nearly every mass shooter in recent US history has used an AR-15 to commit their crime? And why wouldn’t they? High capacity magazine, ease of loading and unloading, almost no recoil, really accurate even without a scope, but numerous scopes available for high precision, great from a distance or up close, easy to carry, and readily available. You can buy one at Wal-Mart, or just about any sports store, and since they’re long guns, I don’t believe you have to be any more than 18 years old with a valid ID. This rifle was made for the modern mass shooter, especially the young one. If he could custom design a weapon to suit his sinister purposes, he couldn’t do a better job than Armalite did with this one already.

This rifle is so deadly and so easy to use that no civilian should be able to get their hands on one. We simply don’t need these things in society at large. I always find it interesting that when I was in the Army, and part of my job was to be incredibly proficient with this exact weapon, I never carried one at any point in garrison other than at the range. Our rifles lived in the arms room, cleaned and oiled, ready for the next range day or deployment. We didn’t carry them around just because we liked them. We didn’t bluster on about barracks defense and our second amendment rights. We tucked our rifles away in the arms room until the next time we needed them, just as it had been done since the Army’s inception. The military police protected us from threats in garrison. They had 9 mm Berettas to carry. They were the only soldiers who carry weapons in garrison. We trusted them to protect us, and they delivered. With notably rare exceptions, this system has worked well. There are fewer shootings on Army posts than in society in general, probably because soldiers are actively discouraged from walking around with rifles, despite being impeccably well trained with them. Perchance, we could have the largely untrained civilian population take a page from that book?

I understand that people want to be able to own guns. That’s ok. We just need to really think about how we’re managing this. Yes, we have to manage it, just as we manage car ownership. People have to get a license to operate a car, and if you operate a car without a license, you’re going to get in trouble for that. We manage all things in society that can pose a danger to other people by their misuse. In addition to cars, we manage drugs, alcohol, exotic animals (there are certain zip codes where you can’t own Serval cats, for example), and fireworks, among other things. We restrict what types of businesses can operate in which zones of the city or county. We have a whole system of permitting for just about any activity a person wants to conduct since those activities could affect others, and we realize, as a society, that we need to try to minimize the risk to other people that comes from the chosen activities of those around them in which they have no say. Gun ownership is the one thing our country collectively refuses to manage, and the result is a lot of dead people.

I can’t drive a Formula One car to work. It would be really cool to be able to do that, and I could probably cut my commute time by a lot. Hey, I’m a good driver, a responsible Formula One owner. You shouldn’t be scared to be on the freeway next to me as I zip around you at 140 MPH, leaving your Mazda in a cloud of dust! Why are you scared? Cars don’t kill people. People kill people. Doesn’t this sound like bullshit? It is bullshit, and everybody knows. Not one person I know would argue non-ironically that Formula One cars on the freeway are a good idea. Yet, these same people will say it’s totally ok to own the firearm equivalent because, in the words of comedian Jim Jeffries, “fuck you, I like guns”.

Yes, yes, I hear you now. We have a second amendment to the constitution, which must be held sacrosanct over all other amendments. Dude. No. The constitution was made to be a malleable document. It’s intentionally vague. We can enact gun control without infringing on the right to bear arms. You can have your deer rifle. You can have your shotgun that you love to shoot clay pigeons with. You can have your target pistol. Get a license. Get a training course. Recertify at a predetermined interval. You do not need a military grade rifle. You don’t. There’s no excuse.

“But we’re supposed to protect against tyranny! I need the same weapons the military would come at me with!” Dude. You know where I can get an Apache helicopter and a Paladin?! Hook a girl up! Seriously, though, do you really think you’d be able to hold off the government with an individual level weapon? Because you wouldn’t. One grenade, and you’re toast. Don’t have these illusions of standing up to the government, and needing military style rifles for that purpose. You’re not going to stand up to the government with this thing. They’d take you out in about half a second.

Let’s be honest. You just want a cool toy, and for the vast majority of people, that’s all an AR-15 is. It’s something fun to take to the range and put some really wicked holes in a piece of paper. Good for you. I know how enjoyable that is. I’m sure for a certain percentage of people, they might not kill anyone driving a Formula One car down the freeway, or owning a Cheetah as a pet, or setting off professional grade fireworks without a permit. Some people are good with this stuff, and some people are lucky, but those cases don’t negate the overall rule. Military style rifles have been the choice du jour in the incidents that have made our country the mass shootings capitol of the world. Formula One cars aren’t good for commuting. Cheetahs are bitey. Professional grade fireworks will probably take your hand off. All but one of these are common sense to the average American. Let’s fix that. Be honest, you don’t need that AR-15. Nobody does. Society needs them gone, no matter how good you may be with yours. Kids are dying, and it’s time to stop fucking around.

5,400 thoughts on ““Fuck you, I like guns.”

  1. For one the civilian sported rifles are nothing like the military’s! I disagree about AR-15 being designed to kill human beings! The human mind is what, the military makes a weapon out of!
    The AR-15, along with other general military small arms are in fact tools used, for self defense because the rules of engagement all service members abide by has guidelines to ensure these weapons are not used, for anything other than defense!! These military tools were designed to protect, and defend the greater good, from evil! These rules make sure these tools are used, for that purpose!
    If these military tools were designed to be murder machines like you are saying then there would be no need, for these rules!
    The military also back this up even further by not using bullets like hollow points, or anything too inhumane! So no! I think you’re spreading this diseased anti-gun stupidity just like the anti-gun stupidytes! These anti-gun stupidomizers are responsible, for starting this school shooting mass murder trend with their anti-gun stupidity, and have continued to encourage that trend every fucking step of the way!
    Mankind has been massacring throughout history long before the gun was ever invented, causing casualty numbers that could have built mountains! There is only human violence, by human hands, with human intentions!
    Vigilance, and awareness is the only way to stop this, and if you were in the military, you should know this most of all, instead of damning the gun!
    The AR was not designed to kill, it does a piss poor job at it, and it’s always done a piss poor job at it! The human being is the true weapon of violence, and this is something that government gun control can never control!
    Government gun control never controls the bad guys, and always criminalizes the good!!
    Government gun control criminalizes, and victimizes law abiding citizens!
    Our country has city police, county police, state police, ATF, FBI, DEA, and more! They have the fucking tools already, and if they cannot control anything with they have already then stupidity is the goddamned problem!
    Stupidity is the problem, and stupidity has always been the problem!
    Stupidity is the most dangerous weapon in the world that is always underestimated until the damage is done!
    Our governments decisions epitomizes this stupidity!! We all need to wake the fuck up, and look up at the fascist fools managing our country into the ground, while they wipe their shit soaked asses with our constitution by passing stupid diseased laws that do nothing, but oppress the wrong goddamned people!!

    Like

    1. You left alot of bullshit for a really short question.
      AR15’S were VERY obviously designed to kill humans, just like the first gun ever made. The chinese made gunpowder, to what, hunt pandas? No, to blow up their enemies with their sweet proto-guns.
      Ever since their conception, guns have been designed to kill people. Many in the 1700-1800’s served dual purposes of hunting and defending yourself. However, one thing was ever present, they had to be strong enough to bring a man down AND the beast you hunt.
      The “Hunting Rifle”, used ONLY for hunting, is really a very modern invention in the history of guns. The indisputable truth, is that guns were always meant to kill people. Military Rifles ESPECIALLY only have one purpose, and to be frank, you are an absolute dunce if you can’t see that.
      You are actually trying to tell us that they aren’t designed, and never were designed, to kill people?! That they are designed for hunting, that THE Military designs rifles to go hunting with, like, sport/recreational hunting?
      My Dude, you are either blissfully ignorant to the facts, or INTENTIONALLY squeing them so they fit you idea of reality. Unfortunately for you, it is painfully obvious which, of the two, you actually fall under!
      Firther more, what’s really funny, is your “Reality”, reads a lot like other people’s “Fantasy” or “Fiction”. As in, it is not true and you are most certainly being deceptive with your facts.

      Her are the REAL facts, buddy:

      THE MILITARY DOESN’T GO HUNTING, AND THEREFORE, THEY WOULD NEVER DESIGN A WEAPON FOR HUNTING!

      OH WAIT, THEY DO GO HUNTING, FOR PEOPLE!!!
      SO, MAYBE YOU ARE RIGHT, THEY DO DESIGN HUNTING RIFLES.

      …….WHOSE SOLE PURPOSE IS TO HUNT AND KILL HUMANS AND NOTHING ELSE.

      You know what….
      Damn dude, in the end I guess you actually were correct…..fuck me, right?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yeah, fuck you. You sleight someone for intentionally skewing facts, then you do the same. The purpose of the military version of the weapon in question is for combat. The M-16 is a battle rifle, the AR-15 is a civilian rifle. The very first ads from Colt promoted the “Modern Sporting Rifle” and touted its use as both defensive and varmint hunting. So guess what, my dude? You’re a fucking jackhole who is just as dishonest and retarded as the fucking jackhole you think you’re setting straight.

        Like

      2. In reality, the Chinese invented gun powder and used it for fireworks to honor and remember the dead. It was white people that changed its use for guns and explosives. Check your history.

        Like

      3. To XIN – it was not “white people” that turned Chinese gunpowder into weapons – use your own words and check your history (I suggest google that shit before you #### up).
        Long before “white people” used it for weapons, it was weaponized by many other cultures including the Chinese. So check yo self 😛 #noob 🙂

        Like

    2. Well u can’t EDUCATE STUPIDITY AND I OWN 6 AR-15 and guess what THEY HAVE NOT KILLED ONE HUMAN BEING AND I OWN THEM BECAUSE THAT IS MY CHOICE AND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND IT IS PEOPLE LIKE U THAT WANT TO TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOM OF CHOICE JUST LIKE HITLER,STALIN DID IN THEIR COUNTRY ANYWAY I THANK U FOR SERVICE AND I ALSO DID MY 8 years in the UNITED STATES 🇺🇸 NAVY!!!!!!

      Like

      1. I bet you’re totally down with Trump declaring a national emergency on the border. The ’emergency’ being that he didn’t get his precious wall.

        If he gets his way, a future POTUS can declare a national emergency and put ammunition manufacturers under DOD control. Run a campaign to persuade the right people that the military has an ammunition shortage, and it’s done. Better start saving your brass and learning how to reload your ammo.

        Like

      2. You so funny…..

        The purpose of a “wall” is to make it more difficult to enter illegally. It also serves to funnel traffic to “choke points” that are easier to control.

        Without borders, without border enforcement, we abdicate our country’s sovereignty to others.

        As for declaring a military ammo shortage and hijacking civilian ammo manufacturing for military….. won’t happen. Probably would not survive a court challenge. In any event, we know how much ammo the military and government has, how much they need, and manufacturers have more than enough capacity to manage that.

        Like

      3. The purpose of the wall is to fulfill the egos of a con man and his followers who have gone down a rabbit hole. Any magic world you could wiggle your cute little nose and make a wall across the southern border that would make it a little harder for bad people to come here. But there’s no such thing as magic you have to pay for it and the billions he’s asking probably won’t cover all of the eminent domain cases they’re going to have, The wall will probably approach 1 trillion. So outside of using magic, we’re talking about cost-effective, ever hear of the concept? Bill Clinton made E-Verify mandatory for private businesses getting government contracts. Making it mandatory for all businesses, and actually enforced by throwing business people in jail, which solve the majority of her undocumented worker problem. Won’t cost trillions probably wouldn’t cost billions, we already have the structure in place, but you’re pushing for $1 trillion wall. It’s almost like somebody doesn’t really want to stop illegal immigration, It’s almost like they just want people to hate Mexicans so you’ll ignore the trillion dollar deficit they just added to our kids credit card… Oh that’s right that’s exactly what’s been done.
        No, it is absolutely ignorant to spend $50,000 to secure your front door when all your windows and back doors are open. Idiots. Oh, and Mexico was going to pay for it. LOL.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Ok, all caps psycho. Really? Take away your rights? Your freedom? Grow the fuck up and be a man. A man that doesn’t need a rifle to be s tough guy. Your are the exact example of the problem.

        Liked by 2 people

      5. I agree with the ALL CAPS point. Screaming does nothing. My question is, who are you to decide what I need to feel like a man? Who defines who it what a “man” is? Is it gender in our stupidly gender fluid society? Is it mind set? What? The problem with folks such as yourself is you make absolutely no effort to try and understand the mindset of the every-day, normal gun owner. You have these spoon fed preconceived notions that, because they fall outside your “norms”, you oppose by rote.

        Like

    3. Golly!! Frank!!! Every sentence ends with one or two exclamation points. Like being in a foreign land and speaking slowly and loudly as if that will help the foreigners understand you.
      No. You are emotional about having an AR-15. Nothing else matters.

      Liked by 1 person

    4. You know better or should. The AR-15 replicates the function of the m4 and earlier m16 which were both designed as assault, not defensive weapons. A high velocity .223 round will dismember or kill when striking a human being in most situations without early triage.
      You are correct about one thing “Stupidity is the problem, and stupidity has always been the problem! Stupidity is the most dangerous weapon in the world that is always underestimated until the damage is done!”

      Liked by 1 person

    5. If people kill people, you should be damn careful how you’re talking because, you’ve got enough hatred in you to do it! Military weapons were made to kill people. You should seek help with your anger.

      Like

    6. Blah blah blah. Bullshit. The AR 15 is a tool, so innocent and helful. Yeah, right. Point your AR 15 up your culo. Or better your mouth. Also, stop using so many “!”. You do this because your point is weak and also because you’re annoying. Go back to grammar school, Holmes.

      Like

    7. Blah, blah, blah. It’s seems to be doing a pretty damned good job of killing human beings. Bet it tore up those first graders little bodies.

      Like

    8. @Frank – Were you even in the military? I’m sorry but you’ll be hard pressed to find a big difference between a Daniel Defense AR15 and military spec M4 besides the option to switch to full auto – which rarely does any good besides blind suppression. So you’re wrong – the weapons are almost identical and I’d love for you to specifically detail what aspects are not identical besides full-auto and maybe some extra rails for things like a bipod (which civilian variants can still have if you so choose).

      Next – military doesn’t use hollow-points because of the Geneva convention because they can cause additional pain/suffering not because they are better at killing. They are all good at killing, and our police and FBI do actually use hollow points so I’m not sure what your point is about the hollow-point bullets. An M4 is used to kill the enemy, not just to defend your barracks – what was your MOS? I’m not here pretending I was in the military because I wasn’t but I have great experience with both weapons because I’ve been lucky to learn and shoot with folks who are in the military.

      No one is asking to introduce gun-control to end all murder. Where did you get that idea? I’m sorry, but you’ll be hard pressed to find a way to efficiently kill/engage multiple targets quickly and efficiently with a knife. In every other country they still have murders, carnage and violence. But when a kid goes crazy and tries to go to school and kill people in Japan, they can’t rack up numbers like TWENTY DEAD PEOPLE in minutes. That knife attacker in Japan sadly managed to kill one student before he was restrained but if he had an AR15 I guarantee you he would have managed to kill a lot more.

      That rifle is used to efficiently engage and neutralize multiple targets in fast succession. You are crazy to think otherwise. I’m not arguing either side but everything you said is just not true at all.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The Geneva convention is by and large about the treatment of POWs, and we didn’t sign the thing. Try again.

        Imagine making gun policy based on outlying events like mass shootings, rather than the 2 million defensive uses firearms perform per year.

        Like

    9. Does this mean that all the other countrys in the world which have a small fraction of the gun deaths that were have are countries without stupidity?

      Like

    10. “The AR was not designed to kill, it does a piss poor job at it, and it’s always done a piss poor job at it!” — Geez, you must be a lousy shot.

      Like

    11. Fuck your second amendment if it costs the life of one child. It’s not a right, its a mistake, and much like prohibition and slavery should be struck from the constitution. Your suggestion that the military don’t use inhumane munitions forgets about the depleted uranium rounds used in recent expeditions.

      What are you so afraid if that you don’t think you can live your life without a gun, the same way most of the world goes about their lives?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Would you still give up the right that saves millions of lives to save one?
        I’d hate to see your answer to the Trolley problem.

        Like

      2. Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Thirteenth Amendment (Amendment XIII) to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. In Congress, it was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, and by the House on January 31, 1865. The 18th Amendment regarding prohibition was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. I for one, can live without a gun personally, but it is an actual Amendment (the 2nd one) while the others you mentioned haven’t been in effect for quite some time…please see above.

        Like

      3. It’s actually a step forward when they recognize that an amendment to the constitution requires ANOTHER amendment to the constitution to be struck, otherwise they have to acknowledge its continued existence.

        Like

      4. Fuck your second amendment if it costs the life of one child. It’s not a right, its a mistake, and much like prohibition and slavery should be struck from the constitution

        “…if it costs one life of a child.”

        I deduce that you believe that Roe v. Wade is an abomination.

        But even only considering real constitutional protections, instead of ones invented, by judges, they probably also cost the life of at least one child.

        Consider the 4th Amendment. It restricts the ability of the police to find evidence of criminal wrongdoing. This means criminals, including those who murder children, may get away with their crimes, which in turn kills children.

        Not only that, the 4th Amendment is unique to the United States of America. Surely the police in Paris, Lagos, or Singapore do not worry about the 4th Amendment, probable cause, or the exclusionary rule. They just look for evidence. Why not follow the example of other countries?

        How many children’s lives can we save if the police had unlimited authority to search for evidence?

        Or what about the 5th or 6th Amendments? How many more criminals could we watch if we could make them testify against themselves?

        Or why even bother with trials? Why not trust the police to judge who is and is not guilty?

        How many children’s lives could we save if we simply let them judge whether or not murderers are guilty?

        Or what about the 14th amendment? What if there were certain racial demographics in the U.S. that commit murder at a significantly higher rate than the general population? Why should not the police focus on those demographics? Why should not lawmakers place extra restrictions on the liberties of people in those crime-prone demographics.

        Would it not be worth it if it saved the life of one child?

        Like

    12. Your use of exclamation marks to end every sentence is totally amazing. Clear evidence of the dogshit mind that makes the dogshit arguments you’re making. Tell me: what’s it like to be that stupid?

      Like

    13. Erm, defense or offense it’s STILL DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE. As to the closing statements – yup stupidity and if you can’t trust people behind the wheel of a car you take away their license or fail them from even getting one. Rules are used to limit stupid peoples actions. And let’s face it it’s stupidly easy to get a gun in the states with no “test” for ownership. And again AUTOMATICS, are for killing! – defense or not they are designed to KILL PEOPLE. And have no place in being accessible in society.

      Like

      1. All guns were designed to kill something…. animal, human, whatever.

        What is a “test for ownership”? All transactions through an FFL, regardless of state, ho through the same process. You want UBC? Great! But get joe-gangster to do BGC when he sells his stolen gun to another banger? Right.

        AUTOMATICS are already highly regulated, taxed, registered and expensive. Ed

        Like

      2. Drivers have their licensed revoked, yes. But they continue to drive until caught. Just like illegals who were deported keep returning, or thieves keep thieving, cheaters keep cheating. You can try and legislate behavior, you can try and enforce those laws, but ultimately people will do whatever the hell they want.

        Like

    14. I suppose you think civilians should be able to have tanks and rocket launchers also…just where do you draw the line?

      Like

      1. I don’t draw a line. If you think only our government should ever have ANYTHING, remember what happened the first time only our government had a nuclear arsenal.

        It used 100% of it.
        On a heavily populated city.
        Two of them.

        Like

    15. The weapon may be designed to be used mainly as a defensive weapon, but military personnel located outside the US are placed where “defense” is simply a euphemism for offense to accomplish some military foreign policy.

      Like

    16. So, if like you say people are the problem, why do you want to give the problem a gun? And, I’m supposed to just take your word for it that you are law abiding and sane? To hell with that. You’re a stranger, you have a gun, you’re a threat. I have no reason to just take your word for how safe you are around me and my family. The gun may not be the problem, YOU ARE!

      Like

    17. Very eloquently stated. I especially appreciate your erudite use of facts, figures, evidence and references to your sources.

      Thanks for demonstrating so clearly and emphatically that stupidity is the problem.

      Like

    18. If you were right about humans being the problem instead of guns, other countries would have the same level of gun violence problems we do. They don’t. Their gun violence problems are pretty damn well correlated to their gun control laws. We aren’t more evil or more crazy than other countries, we just make it too easy to buy killing machines.

      Like

      1. I have LITERALLY already posted the imge in this page debunking that claim, and yet here it is, a zombie, rising from the dead.

        This is why we no longer debate you. You care not for the facts, you’re just Wally from Dilbert repeating your pap until logical people leave you to matter at yourselves and then declare victory within the echo chamber.

        As one man said, there’s no reason to entertain your ilk beyond “fuck you, pussy.”.

        Like

    19. The Government does not have all the tools it needs to help prevent mass shooting. We do not have a computerized database of current legal gun owners. The NRA and John McCain made sure that a citizen arms database cant be kept by the Government. If we did have that we could cross reference that with records of the mentaly ill and just make a visit to thoses who are at a higher risk to be a mass shooter, and possibly prevent another mass shooting.

      Like

  2. Almost all weapons in history were designed for military purposes. More than a few have ended up in the hands of local populations. Laws have been passed to regulate these weapons. That does not mean if you wish have them you are not allowed to have them. If you follow the rules, have the money, you can own almost anything you wish. A 200+ mph sports car or sedan for that matter. I will not mind if the rules get a little stiffer. We kill more people with car than guns and we all in hot pursuit of safer transpertation. Still personal choice and responsibility should win out in a democracy. No one is telling people they can’t own a jet aircraft. Invented for a military weapon. but as usual technology transferred it public. I am not saying there is no reason for concern. But we should always be careful of what some see as a threat that others see as liberty and freedom of choice.

    Like

  3. I read good part of your article.
    Enough to get your gest.
    First the second amendment was to arm yourself against tyranny and government abuse or brutal taxation, control of people’s lives, and rights to live free and happy.
    Everything that the government owns a civilian should be able to own as long as he’s no criminal.
    If kids are dying from misuse of these types of firearms parents should be held accountable!
    If you threw your load into your woman, you are responsible for raising your kids with morals, discipline, work ethics, knowledge to use a gun to stop damned government if necessary for them screening with us.
    The type of jobs that are in excistance now days are stressful, demanding, badly paid, sometimes far from home with bad traffic and then we get home and just let the rugrats children do what they want and don’t inform ourselves with who they hang around. Neither do we ask about what’s going on in school and really dig in to find all of the truth.
    Children are hypocrites, actors.
    They know how to be angels in front of you and get away with murder.
    Another thing is people are mistreated at work, at schools, at home and develop psychological problems, sometimes hard to spot.
    So if no one gives a poo about investigating or examining oneself, if you are unhappy should get help to fix the problem.
    Even if it means living poor but more care free from stress etc.
    We want too much sometimes and endure shitty jobs.
    If you’re alone and need peace, if you have to live in your car and get a happy job, do it.shower at the WMCA. Live with parents! Whatever it takes for you not to become ballistic.
    Other times the schools don’t care about bullies or little sons of bitches ruining other kids lives!, fire those teachers or fine them.
    I know of two Christian schools that really blew it! And no consequences to teachers after years of knowing serious problems.
    Then comes the useless people who don’t know how to wash their clothes or piss into the bowl without spraying all over and not cleaning afterwards, who want to own a rifle or handgun. It should be required and documented to go into a class to teach people to care for the gun and be able to fire accurately 20 feet at torso. As long as it takes to pass the course. Since we don’t have mandatory military for everyone, like Israel, the way it should.
    Every one should be able to carry a firearm for free, no government carry permits, its unconstitutional.
    We have the right to bear arms and nothing was said about government charging people for that in constitution!!!. You get checked for criminal records and that’s it.
    Carry hidden or exposed.
    The problem isn’t the firearms at all, it’s the discipline of parents, schools, ethics taught etc.
    The crazy crook will get whatever no matter what! He is not going to follow the law so the ones that are should be armed to the teeth.
    And screw the ignorant democrats and wimpy people who can’t wipe their butt being afraid of seeing a gun, thinking that the person is a killer or criminal. Then think the same about the police officers.
    A lot of times they are more stupid and careless about us, calling the marines before they make a move to try to help you, leaving to be gunned down in the process. Especially if you’re gay or black.
    Yes, they are a click of people who take care of their own unless you are low rank, they may throw you to the fire to cover their ass too.
    All political and what counts is the God ol boys and their pensions.
    I’ve been around a lot of stuff, I know what I’m talking about.
    Sooner or later someone is going to arrest me.
    So I’m for the more guns the better, whatever government owns we should own.
    This includes tanks, jet fighters, the works.
    Except an atomic bomb.
    Government won’t throw one here because they want the land clean and some survivors to do their work and wipe their asses and show worship kissing their ass and saying they are good people to govern over the peons.
    We are ruled by evil, agenda, globalist and the ones that aren’t are meeting the worst resistance in history and possibly a future elimination by some hired killers, after trying to bury them any other way they could. That is the truth and the solution for the most part re guarding firearms. Don’t restrict, that’s what politicians want to dominate you, we’ve already been restricted a whole bunch. Where is it going to end?
    You know stairs are dangerous for stupid people, put electric flat, low stairs, get rid of hammers and cars, don’t use forks or spoons to eat so fast. Don’t put corn syrup into seeets, etc etc. restrict sweets to save lives.
    Do those things and you will see the population will thrive in health and deaths will decrease greatly.
    There’s less crime by guns than hammers etc. look at England statistics and they don’t have guns!
    Hitler’s phylosophy and law was tha a country without guns is a safe country. Look what he did afterwards, brake into homes to look and kill Jews, mistreated non Jews, anyone not master Arian race was screwed. Have more guns, all types and calibers and thousands of ammunition and tons of loaded magazines.
    You never know when the government will come for your first born one day and you won’t have a clue he’s coming for you.
    They know when you crap, where you crap and more than you know about yourself is all stored in a huge facility where everything you said over phone, or posted on computer and everything you buy and do its compiled. All in attempt to figure you out and know what to do to finalize world order.
    Laugh all you want and think they care for you.

    Like

    1. All right enough of your response to get the gist of what you were saying, A bunch of misinformation and a perverted understanding of America.
      The second amendment was made to protect us from foreign invaders and slave rebellion thise were the primary reason. We didn’t even have a standing army at the time. Our founding fathers did not say it was to protect them from the government. Founding fathers did not say itwas to protect us them from the government, our Constitution is what protects us from the government, The propaganda you’re repeating is meant to distract us from the constitution. Arms without the constitution is nothing but anarchy.
      If men get women pregnant they are hardly held responsible they might have to pay child-support but hardly enough to raise and educate the child through college.

      Like

      1. “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
        – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

        Like

      2. Thomas Jefferson didn’t talk in bumper stickers. On the day Timothy McVeigh chose to murder 168 of his fellow Americans, he was wearing a shirt that carried Jefferson’s infamous words:
        The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.
        I doubt McVeigh, like you, ever bothered to read the quote in context. In context TJ explains how ignorance leads to uprisings like in Massachusetts and how it is the responsibility for the government… “remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them”
        He doesn’t say taking arms is right or solves anything, he says it is the natural progression to not paying attention. We lose our liberty when ignorant people take up arms.
        http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/08/jeffersons-tree-of-liberty-quote-in.html

        Like

      3. Maybe try reading the Federalist papers the second amendment was specifically to guard against our own government becoming tyranical against its own people. Why? Because that is what just happened with England. The king became tyranical and we had to fight a war to stop him. Study history, all of it, not just the parts you agree with the second amendment was specifically put in place to keep our own government in check not some foreign country.

        Like

      4. You need to read more…seriously.

        “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
        – Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

        Like

      5. The second amendment was intended to ensure that the states had the means to defend their individual sovereignty which is why it specifically mentioned state militias. Now that states have little more autonomy than counties it’s pretty much become moot.

        Like

      1. Not an accurate statement. If you read Madison’s arguements for an “armed militia” in the Federalist Papers, you would know the right to protect oneself preceded the Constitution and BoR. in fact, the right to self defense can be traced back to early Greco-Roma writings.

        The Second was first a foremost about ensuring the security of a free-state…the United States, on both the State and Federal level. Government used used this provision to enforce and uphold the law. Because Slavery was “legal” back then, and slave escapes/revolts were illegal, southern militias were used to uphold the law, not “preserve slavery”.

        Like

      2. I think if you cherry pick one statement from the Federalist papers, you can make your argument, you can make any argument.
        Of course people have a right to defend themselves, and in some situations banning certain types of guns, demanding background checks, is defending ourselves and protecting our families. If somebody bands guns in their home, they immediately increase the chances that their children will not be killed by a gun and that’s their choice.

        Like

      3. Cherry pick what? Have you read Madison? If you had you would know another reason for the 2nd Amendment was fear of a standing federal army. The 2nd Amendment was written to appease the anti-federalists, allowing State’s citizens to be armed against the potential aggression of the federal Government. Remember, we had just won a war with the “tyrannical” English king….

        Like

      4. They didn’t want a militia to protect them from a standing federal army, there was no standing federal army. They wanted the militias to eliminate the need of a standing army, because they feared a standing army. They knew perfectly well, that a standing army could override the militias. But of course we don’t hear anybody talking about that reasoning, do we? Quite the opposite most 2 amendment extremists want a standing military and wanted to be even stronger and bigger. Also, at the time, only whites were allowed to have guns,
        at the time of the freshly written constitution! The leaders of the time, also wouldn’t of had an issue with refusing somebody who wasn’t wanted in the militia to own a gun. They also understood that the 2 amendment was an accessory to the constitution it wasn’t the other way around. Without the Constitution, the Second Amendment is simply a bunch of anarchist with guns.

        Like

      5. Shockingly, throwing the word anarchist around does not make your point correct. It’s just a buzzword that scares people.

        Like

      6. I’m just using it as a word to represent armed citizens without laws. Not sure why you’re talking about the definition of a word and not ideas. No, I actually know what you’re doing it.

        Like

    2. Do you really believe that “Everything that the government owns a civilian should be able to own as long as he’s no criminal?”

      To take this to the most extreme iteration, do you truly believe you should be able, if you have the money and a clean record, to purchase a Trident nuclear missile?

      I would really like to know your answer to this point.

      Like

      1. You mean like how the founding fathers regularly commissioned civilian’s with warships to collect bounties (Letters of marque)? Yes. Yes, they DID plan for that. In the south there are still regularly homesteads with cannons on the lawn, because when you got conscripted, if you had a cannon, you became artillery instead of infantry, which gave you a much better shot at surviving.

        Like

    3. Damn Sergio – no words – no need I guess – but good luck – enjoy what you have buddy – I’m sorry the world looks like that to you

      Like

    4. And when the “government” comes for you and your kid, you’ll use your weapon to take them down.

      It’s 2AM and SEALS silently cut the power to your home and jam your mobile phone (and other radios). The cover is set – snipers with 50 Cals in hidden positions. 30 seconds later (before you realize it’s not your circuit breakers) a squad of SEAL trained / equipped military land in your yard in two Hueys, 16 men in body armor and full tactical gear come into your home. They’ve pulled the plans for your home from the City permit office, so they know the layout. They actually drilled for this exact moment. The flash-bang grenades and tear gas canisters go off and these men, with night-vision goggles and gas masks, come for you.

      Sure. You’re going to defend yourself from the “government” when they come for you. You’ll sure show them!

      If “they” are really coming for you, you’ll have zero chance of holding them off, with or without guns. Please don’t tell us you own all these armaments to hold “them” at bay. Its’ like arguing that you own a motorcycle so you can out-jump Evel Knievel or take down Valentino Rossi – it’s not going to happen in this lifetime or the next.

      PS If you don’t like our country and the fact you have to life in such fear and terror of “them,” may I suggest that you return to where you and your ancestors came from?

      Like

      1. Imagine a country where concentration camps have been discovered to exist advising its citizens that when Kristallnacht comes, there’s no point resisting.
        If 1/5 of Jewish homes even WOUNDED a SS agent, eventually they’d have stopped…
        But you’d rather disarm people in a country where the government splits parents and children into different cages.
        I guess we know everything we know about who you are.
        When you have a table with 6 people, a nazi and 5 people chatting up a nazi… you have a table with 6 nazis, right?

        Like

  4. There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

    Get back to us when you have a real argument.

    Like

      1. Well, thank you. When some idiot can’t carry a discussion and tries to distract with some superfluous word meanings, I’m happy to turn into a troll, and you made it worthwhile! Why sould anyone waste any other efforts on you? Later dude.

        Like

      2. It was the conversation until you started blabbering stupid shit. And now your blabbering about leaving the room…
        Well it’s later now, dude. 🙂 you’re making everybody glad they’re not you.

        Again without the rest of the constitution, the 2nd Amendment is nothing but a bunch of Anarchist with guns.

        Like

      3. LOL, Oh look, the typo police. You’re sounding desperate. It never occurres to people like you that if you don’t have a real argument, it’s because there aren’t any.

        Like

      4. Oh now you’re just projecting… if you don’t get more creative I’m gonna stop trolling you. If I’m going to waste my time I’d rather do it with a far right nut who at least tries to make an argument.
        Maybe you should go find some far left nuts and compare notes, have a beer, play some cards, you really are just two sides of the same coin.
        But then if this is all because I used the word “anarchist” and it scared you, I’m sorry dude. 😝

        Like

      5. Yep, that’s exactly who you are and always have been. I will take my badge now and go enjoy this beautiful day

        Like

      6. /Users/russell/Downloads/28168195_10213186997043972_6270495455735037076_n.jpg
        /Users/russell/Downloads/31166956_1813199228702747_2940334177049903104_n.jpg

        Like

    1. Were you saying the same things about the border when Obama rhetoric was the same as trump’s, your words mean nothing if your not consistent in your beliefs no matter whos in office.

      Like

  5. There are too many points in this blog that are ridiculous and nonsensical to rebut. Just read it people, you’ll understand, deep down, that it’s all invalid.

    Like

  6. You want the AR’s? Come git ’em.

    The jug eared psycho who shot up the Parkland School was let off a hundred times by the now finally removed corrupt, demshevik Broward Sheriff. The FBI knew all about this killer who’d spent eight years threatening to kill fellow students, when not torturing animals.

    We don’t need ARs? Who the hell croaked and appointed you the arbiter of the Second Amendment?

    What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not comprehend? Gun control begets genocide, always.

    You like gun control and the commie scumbags who pimp it? Go live in Cuba. All the gun control you desire.

    Like

    1. What part of “well regulated militia being necessary for the State” do you not understand? Are those words too big for you?

      Or how about this: I was appoint arbiter of the 2nd Amendment, because I am a citizen of the United States, and in a free democracy, I get to participate precisely in that arbitration.

      Frankly, Cuba is a crap-ton safer walking the streets than anywhere in the US, so…maybe I will. But, on the other hand, if you love your guns so much, Mogadishu is calling…

      Like

      1. Way to not even be able to quote the 2nd amendment, no, Cuba is NOT safer than the US as a whole, just the parts of the US with strict gun laws, and no, we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a republic.

        Like

  7. Happy to say that I live in the UK but I have relatives in the USA , so I worry about the crowd that say”you take my AR 15 over my dead body” I own a couple of shotguns which are on one license but no rifle or hand guns. No rifle as I do not hunt and no hand gun as they are banned in this country. Recently we have had a large amount civil unrest over ‘Brexit’ and concerns about climate change but no one has tried to kill another member of the opposite view point with a firearm. In a civilian world a semi automatic weapon has no use for hunting and if you turned up at a shoot with one you would be asked to leave. My reading of the Second Amendment talks about a well regulated militia so I think there is a huge distortion of the intent.

    Like

    1. Good for you. You own a shotgun. I hope you never need to use it during a home invasion (which I’ve read there’s been a large increase in the UK since handguns were banned). At any rate, let me school you in some history. “A well regulated militia”, in the context of the framers thinking, meant any able bodied man capable of coming to the common defense. As the founders were opposed to a standing army, they meant regular folk (like me) who would rally and bring their own firearms. It stands to reason that us commoners would want to possess the best weaponry we could afford- and that fact hasn’t changed (weaponry has evolved, evil and encroaching government has not). Secondly “regulated” in the vernacular of the time meant “practiced”, and not regulated as in controlled.

      Like

    2. Wow, you live in the UK and want to throw stones? Your opinion of our laws means less than squat as the reason for the second amendment began from breaking away from your government in the first place. Happy we are all friends now though. The 2nd Amendment is quite clear, and the intent was for civilians who make up the “militia” in case the government turn tyrannical have access to “weapons of the soldier”. But lets not waste our time talking about the States alone, lets look at merry old England shall we? Just a 3-4 days span for kicks and this is not meant to encompass all of them;

      –Streatham shooting: Man fighting for life after being shot in south London – 1 day ago
      –Moss Side shooting: Two children among 10 people in hospital after mass shooting in Manchester – (bad guy using shotgun)
      –A fast food worker today spoke of his terror after a masked gunman opened fire outside his restaurant in the second north London gun attack in 24 hours.
      –Isleworth shooting: Teen boy, 17, fighting for life after being gunned down in west London

      Between 2002-03 (when recording changed) and 2014-15, firearms offences, excluding air weapons, fell from 10,248 to 4,911 but have since risen to 6,521 in 2017-18. Your other violent crime has risen 19% but mostly due to crimes involving knives.

      Pardon me if your description of your homeland is not quite what your news agencies are reporting. This is after a ban on handguns following the Dunblane school shooting and the ban on semi-automatics in the 80’s.

      Sorry, your more civilized culture there in the UK is not without its own resurging violent crime problem and looks like everyone does not go about life as you do. But looking through the short list above, perhaps no one needs a shotgun in the UK anymore since there are plenty of food stores now or could be raised to feed everyone. better than having 10 people including two children in the hospital because someone needed their own shotgun right?

      Like

  8. The problem with outlawing any particular firearm; you’ve just made a stockpile of outlawed firearms for criminals to get ahold of.
    Because we all know, “Criminals Don’t Follow Laws”
    That’s why they’re called criminals!
    Not to mention, your outlawing a Firearm that wasn’t even used?
    That’s like outlawing a Chevy Truck because the Ford Pinto exploded!

    Like

    1. No one’s going to ban them as in confiscate them, they will simply ban new sales of them. We’ve done it before it’s worked fine.
      I do believe they stop making the Pinto because it exploded, of course they’re not going to ban all cars just the ones that have a problem.
      Once they ban a weapon type, it will take decades for it to be removed from society, it’s a long-term plan not short term. That’s how you have to do it in a free country.

      Like

      1. There was not any big black market demand for Pintos.

        But there is a great demand for guns. All that is needed to make guns are some machine tools and metal.

        You can either have this market dominated by law-abiding manufacturers and retailers, or you can have this market dominated by the Crips, the Mafia, and MS-13.

        Pick ONE.

        Like

  9. Just to support the author’s point about injuries vs deaths in battle. My step-father, Marine and Viet Nam vet, used to say that they were told that an injury was better than a kill because the resources that the enemy needed to care for an injury were so much greater than those needed to care for a death.

    Like

  10. Thank you for a straightforward, clear, and honest statement. Looks like it was a magnet for apologists and mansplainers. That you seem to have struck a nerve lends credence.

    Like

    1. Apologists, and mansplainers. Hmm, that makes you female more than likely. Just a guess, but men don’t usually have a problem with other men explaining why they were wrong. If they do, they don’t use that term.

      Most law abiding gun owners don’t apologize for owning them. And contrary to the new order, explaining to anyone that they are off on their facts, and their skewed perception cannot fit reality is a public service. If you want to call it mansplaining that is cool, I guess.

      Striking a nerve … That’s more difficult. Does this strike a nerve? Yes, but not for the reasons you think. It is because multiple people who are far less educated on the subject than this author will take her comments as gospel and use this uneducated “opinion” to formulate their own without checking facts.

      This type of activism is dangerous. So, yes I guess a nerve is struck when people try to brainwash the uneducated, often too lazy to actually research, masses.

      But then again…this is only her opinion based on limited experiences, and she is entitled to her opinion. Her experiences have formed “her truth” which makes it real .. to her. Policy which governs a country needs to work across the whole and sometimes in spite of many to make the country work.

      I thank her for her service … I have had 30 years in multiple countries so my experience is vastly different but no less or more valuable. Always great to hear from another veteran.

      Like

  11. As an addendum to alluding to a bunch’a rednecks playing with weapons believing they’d stand a snowballs chance in hell against our military – with the advancements in nanotech weapons just since you wrote this, those pretend militia would never even realize they’d been attacked, they would just drop dead.
    🙄

    Like

    1. Afghanistan, Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq. Your army/weapons do not matter when free men defend their families and home. Or do you think you are/where winning in Afghanistan and Iraq? I for one do not feel more inclined to trust the Norwegian government knowing they disarmed the Norwegian population around the time i was born. I would sleep better at night if i knew i could defend myself against the state, the empire is falling and seeing how they treat people in foreign countries so i know how they will treat us when “the west” openly becomes fascist police states.

      Like

      1. Yeah well, you sleeping better at night has literally never been my biggest concern when there are lives on the line.

        Just because you were born with an excess of paranoia weighing down your brain doesn’t mean the rest of us the have to sleep worse knowing our children could be shot tomorrow at school.

        Got it? Take a Valium or something.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. If ANY of you saying that citizens with rifles cannot take on a military actually knew what the fuck you were talking about, we would not have this discussion.

    Empires as far back as Ghengis Khan have tried to take Afghanistan. How many Russians and US military have also died there? To whom? A bunch of farmers in the mountains armed with little more than AK-47’s and what they steal from military units occupying their lands.

    Don’t question, don’t flame. I spent more than enough time there that you cannot possibly argue effectively. I have seen it, experienced it, and can tell you how effective a small band of well motivated individuals with nothing more than a few rifles and pistols can turn the tide of a battle quite easily.

    If you think you stop gun violence taking away the scary looking guns, think again. Then what? Take away more, and more? Then one day it will be “who needs a pistol to hunt with?” And, “why do you need pistols with 15 round magazines that can be taken out and replaced easily?”

    YOUR PROBLEM IS NOT THE GUNS!!
    YOUR PROBLEM IS THAT YOU ARE SCARED!!
    You should be, but not about guns.

    Welcome to the realization that you really do not live in a utopian society. You are not safe here in the US while the bad stuff happens “over there”. Yes you have to deal with the fact there are bad people in your neighborhood sprinkled in with the normal Jones’ and Pavrova’s, and Garcias’. You have to deal with the realization that more are coming in through our porous border sprinkled in with the actual migrants and asylum seekers. You have to deal with the fact that gun violence can happen as easily in your neighborhood as the barrio or south side, or the gang-infested inner cities. Drive by’s in Compton were common place for a while, now you see them in Connecticut or El Paso, or Dayton.

    Taking away the guns is not the answer. Never was. Trying to determine who is mentally ill today but are not showing signs yet but eventually will end up grabbing his AR-15 and 9ea 30rd magazines and visit the local department store 5 years from now after he has had his third mental breakdown since his divorce, bankruptcy, and unemployment has led him to 2-days of money left and two weeks until he is being evicted. Good luck with that.

    We can take away the guns. Then the bows and arrows. Then the knives. Then the pressure cookers (like boston marathon). Then vehicles, because you can always redirect your car through a crowded corner with kids waiting to get picked up by the bus, or after a sporting event lets out there are hundreds (Or Times Square on practically any day).

    Keep taking away the tools and people will invent new tools. Trust that.

    You can try to keep taking away the means to kill others, but you will never solve the problem until you realize what the actual problem is….

    My telling you the problem will not solve the problem. It will open up a myriad of back and forth ratholes with everyone debating each single point when the answer is hundreds of points.

    Why is it that there are more of these issues today than 20-30 years ago? Guns were easy to get then. Actually much easier before background checks. What has changed in society? What has changed in the way we are raising our youth (look at the ages of almost every mass shooting in the past 10 years)? Why is it that our youth are much more susceptible to brain wash, less prepared for the rigors of every day life, and value less their own life and lives of others? What has changed?

    I own guns, will continue to own guns. If there is ever a shooter, or whocko with a samarai sword in a Walmart while I am there you need to hope that I, or someone like me, is there close to you. And you best hope that I am still able to carry the best I have today.

    What you need to do is figure out how we change our society back from where it is at today. Both you on the right, you on the left, people in the center, and also the people too wishy washy to even have an opinion, better stop demonizing everyone else and work together. NONE OF YOU ARE RIGHT. But together we can be again. And don’t sit there saying “just as soon as the other side comes to their senses we can start” because you are just as full of shit.

    You don’t want to hear it but many of you are part of the actual problem. You have had influence, impact, or sat tacitly accepting the changes that have led to where we are. This did not happen in a day, week, or decade. Identifying what we did wrong over the last 30-40 years can help get us back there though. Keep denying that you have any responsibility we never will.

    Rant complete. You may now return back to your program.

    Like

    1. Luckily, the government isn’t coming after you. All rights are gone if the government turns tyrannical. You can not protect yourself from them if they turn tyrannical.

      And really, truly, is that how you want to live your life? Trying to raise your family locked in some bunker? Always in fear?

      You’re right, this was a long time coming. Hopefully, it won’t take as long to repair. These mass shootings wake a lot of people up. Gut reactions and fear form the initial words we hear/read/say/write. It’s good to learn to talk about these things without name calling and blame, but more brain-storming to get everything out and read and help educate as much as we can.

      But most important–the option we’ve used all along: Educate ourselves to which candidates will keep/make our government serve the people as best they can; make sure politicians are responsible for their actions–if things are screwed up, vote them out.

      Like

  13. I am down with you all the way. Thank you for writing a very insightful and thought provoking piece. It’s making people think and pissing some people off. That’s good. You hit the mark!

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Kinda left out the fact that Military version M-4’s and M-16’s are FULLY automatic weapons( although they can be selected to fire semi) and not semi-automatic, any semi-automatic rifle can do the same or even worse damage than an AR-15, especially a semi shotgun which if used in the same way would leave more dead than injured.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Sorry for all the hate you’ll get from this. I, too, like guns, but I agree that we don’t need assault rifles in the hands of the general public. Yes, a ranch rifle can be effectively turned into an assault rifle by inserting a 30 round magazine, but realisticly, a ranch rifle is a good varmint hunter. With a good scope, you can take out coyotes and other varmints at 100 yards easily. A rifle designed for close quarters work to kill a lot of people very quickly is not something that people need. The Dayton shooter killed 9 people in less than 30 seconds. He didn’t kill 9 coyotes or rats in 30 seconds, he killed 9 people before the police killed him. His assault rifle didn’t stop the police from killing him, either. So much for all the BS.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. HAHA Yes it IS you moron. You’re not some goddamn pioneer on the Appalachian trail. You are a citizen of the US and YES that gives you a lot of rights but as part of the social contract your neighbors should get to know if you are going to sneak in their house and rape their children.

        Sorry, bud. Move to Siberia or some shit. Here, we have a responsibility to our neighbors.

        Shithead.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. So strip people of their rights in case they might use them to harm people is what you’re saying?

        You know instead of trying to change the laws here, you might want to just go move to North Korea where they are already in effect.

        Like

      3. HAHA Yes it IS you moron. You’re not some goddamn pioneer on the Appalachian trail. You are a citizen of the US and YES that gives you a lot of rights but as part of the social contract your neighbors should get to know if you are going to sneak in their house and rape their children.

        Sneaking into a person’s house to rape their children violates the rights of both children and parents, so it is the law’s business.

        My possession of an assault rifle violates no one’s rights.

        Here, we have a responsibility to our neighbors.

        A responsibility to not violate their rights, which possession of an assault rifle does not.

        Like

      4. Yelling fire in a theater, also doesn’t violate anybody’s rights, but it puts other people in danger, so guess what? It’s against the law. If society decides you are endangering other people, then they have every right to fix it. The first and second amendments are not absolute all the ideologues want to pretend they are, when it’s convenient.
        Maybe you’ll try to say that you are not endangering anybody, but we don’t know if you’re an idiot who leaves your gun in the corner on the front porch, putting my kids in danger. I’m not about to take your word for it.
        In a nutshell, things aren’t against the law until they are, society decides that. Remember when they constitutionally banned alcohol? How many years did it take for them to constitutionally change it back? Things can be changed.
        I’m not from banning a lot of weapons, but considering so many Second Amendment cultist won’t do anything, they’re going to push society to the point.

        Like

      5. Yelling fire in a theater, also doesn’t violate anybody’s rights, but it puts other people in danger, so guess what? It’s against the law. If society decides you are endangering other people, then they have every right to fix it. The first and second amendments are not absolute all the ideologues want to pretend they are, when it’s convenient.

        Yelling fire in a crowded theater is akin to… shooting a firearm in the general direction of a crowd of people.

        Both constitute reckless endangerment.

        Both are illegal.

        Maybe you’ll try to say that you are not endangering anybody, but we don’t know if you’re an idiot who leaves your gun in the corner on the front porch, putting my kids in danger

        And we do not know if you are an idiot who shouts fire in a crowded theater, putting kids in danger.

        Are we to p[resume that you are such an idiot until you prove otherwise?

        In a nutshell, things aren’t against the law until they are, society decides that.

        That is what people said about the Nuremberg laws.

        Or anti-blasphemy laws.

        Remember when they constitutionally banned alcohol? How many years did it take for them to constitutionally change it back? Things can be changed.

        When alcohol was constitutionally banned, it turned out to be a disaster, even though the law was supposed to save lives, even though those who opposed the law were accused of having the blood of dead kids on their hands.

        Sound familiar?

        Like

  16. Our government doesn’t manage our guns? Are you retarded? Go walk around with a pistol without a license to carry, if your state even allows you to do so. The mass shooting people could care less about laws that are in place. Go look at statistics in places that have strict guns laws vs weak gun laws. Houston (not strict) vs Chicago (strict). More shootings deaths in Chicago by far…
    People are the problem! Make it hard to get guns and what stops them from making a bomb? You think those people just say screw it when they can’t buy a gun legally? People who think like you are absolute morons

    Like

    1. I have to go with Kevelevin, your arguments are old and tired.
      For the umpteenth time, what Chicago’s gun laws are irrelevant because they can drive a few miles into Indiana and buy all the guns they want. Dude, part of the suburb of Chicago is actually in Indiana. The Chicago talking point has come to be a flag, that when people use it, we immediately know they’re uninformed or full of BS. How about you try to find some nations that suits your scenario, try Australia for example, compare it to Houston.

      Like

      1. And even better, why aren’t the places these people drive FROM Chicago, to get their guns, more dangerous because of all these legal guns? 😉

        Like

      2. You’re grabbing at straws now, and you know it. When have to play games, it’s because your argument is invalid.
        First your ignorance is ignoring the fact that it is not legal to shoot people in Chicago, so doesn’t matter if it is to bring the guns into Chicago.
        All except an idiot understands this. If A person can’t buy a gun in America, gang bangers are not going to drive to Mexico to get them as easily as down the street.
        You know there are good arguments against gun control, you pick a real one not a stupid one.
        There was a reason why I stopped following this thread along time ago, it seems to attract idiots.

        Like

      3. First your ignorance is ignoring the fact that it is not legal to shoot people in Chicago, so doesn’t matter if it is to bring the guns into Chicago.

        So they break the law, then.

        If A person can’t buy a gun in America, gang bangers are not going to drive to Mexico to get them as easily as down the street.

        Since people can not buy cocaine and heron in America, I guess all those rumors of the Gangster Disciples and Latin Kings dealing crack in Chicago must be false

        Like

      4. You uh… you want to pick an ISLAND to make your gun control point. Like, literally every place gun grabbers point to is a frickin’ island… England, Japan, Australia… Let me know how hard it is for a cartel to dig a tunnel under YOUR border and compare that to Japan and Australia… Honestly, people don’t care how accurate their comparison is as long as it has shiny enough numbers, huh?

        Like

      5. FYI, Chicago is actually a good argument for the idea that gun control works. Chicago doesn’t have gun control laws; theirs were struck down with Heller in 2008. Shootings started to rise almost immediately, because people with no records went out and bought guns. Some of them were careless and left them where they could get stolen, some saw it as a newfound way to “settle” arguments or to lend to someone who had a beef with someone else. The number of available straw buyers skyrocketed.

        Second, around 2009, Indiana banned local municipalities from enacting their own restrictions on guns, including gun shops. There have long been gun shops in border towns that were loose with the paperwork. The ATF’s ability to inspect firearms dealers is laughable, so local restrictions with enforcement are really all they had. It also made it easier to have a gun show for private sales (no background check). Border gun shops long had some layer of local regulations. The shooting rate continued to rise. It’s actually dropped since due to several community initiatives, but out of state guns are still really easy to get.

        Ironically, if everyone followed the Illinois FOID card system for every firearms transfer, background checks would be easy and quick.

        People who want to own guns in Illinois have to apply for a firearms owner identification card (FOID). It costs $10 and is good for 10 years. The state police are a little backed up so it can take several weeks to get one, but once it’s done, you’re good for 10 years. ISP has the right to come confiscate guns if a FOID is revoked, although that happens mostly when someone has been arrested.

        Private party sales are required to view the FOID card and record the number, although the seller is not required to verify the FOID card is still good, there is a hotline to call to verify its status.

        Make everyone who wants to own a gun get a FOID, use a computerized registry, do an online verification service like for selective service registration.

        The reason it doesn’t always work in Illinois is that straw buyers go to one of 4 gun shops in Illinois or 2 or 3 in Wisconsin and Indiana or to Indiana gun shows and buy a bunch of guns they then sell into the black market.

        And yes, I have a FOID and have bought a gun. I don’t shoot because I bought the gun to target shoot with a family member who is unsafe at the range and I found the company at the range toxic, so I sold it to someone I knew.

        Like

      6. Uhh, Chicago still DOES have a lot of firearms laws, and it also has a lot of MURDERS.
        What it DOESN’T have, coincidentally are A: a total ban on firearms ownership anymore and B: the title of “murder capital of the US” …and yes, those things correlated for quite some time.

        Like

    2. Well, I live in Arizona, so constitutional carry requires no license. We HAVE one so we can achieve reciprocity with other states, but we don’t NEED it for anything.

      Like

  17. Just for the record everytime I have shot an AR-15 at a shooting range it was single handedly the most fun I’ve ever had at a range. We were not shooting at any damn targets shaped like people. We however did shoot alot of full soda cans some old watermelon blocks of wood old chunks of clay pigeons laying around. Do people realize just how many AR-15’s are in the world if you dont think there’s any reason to shoot one at a range you are shooting with the wrong group of people. Looking forward to the next time out. Soooo much fun. Any gun in the hands of an idiot is a killing machine. There is no amount of bans or laws that will stop a dumbass who wants to do that. But of course the media will continue to put them on the news so the next idiot can say hmm I could be on the new no one will for get my name. Stop feeding into the propaganda. No one has a solution and will never have one there will always be something people will find to do this kinda horrible act.

    Like

    1. I dunno.

      “It’s fun as hell,” is not a great argument for your cause. I don’t give a shit how much fun you’re having, if there’s even a tiny chance your gun could fall into the wrong hands (even if it’s yours), your little hobby can go to hell.

      If collecting stamps suddenly ended up being a deadly weapon towards kids or anybody, I dunno, I think I’d be the bigger man and hand over my stamps rather than any one else get hurt.

      Do you see what I’m saying? Any of this getting through?

      Your hobby is not worth a single person’s life.

      Like

      1. I enjoyed lawn darts (the pointy kind). *ONE* child was killed, despite the product being marketed only to adults, and they’re illegal.

        Your point?

        Like

    1. Which is weird, because that’s the opposite of what’s happening. All I’m hearing is “fuck your rights, and your children, go disarm because I’m afraid of things that go bang the wrong way”.

      Like

  18. As someone who grew up literally surrounded by gun culture, and who loves target shooting and formerly owned two guns, I can tell you that the demographic this applies to has a very Freudian relationship with their weapons. It’s Freud married to fear. Fear of “the man.” Fear of “the other.” And a basic fear that they are actually as powerless and impotent as they’ve been taught their entire lives: working dead end jobs to help someone else become rich while they barely skate by. Their guns are their “Ah shit bar” that you find on rollercoasters and in the passenger seats of old muscle cars. These people will give up their Bibles before they give up their guns. And they’re not going to part with either.

    Like

    1. Today it’s guns in the south before the Civil War as long as the poor white trash could look down on slaves they were content. The difference was the slaves were probably better quality people, the poor white weren’t forced to be down there.

      Like

  19. This is a bigger issue than “assault Rifles” from what i’m Reading hear the peeps that want to ban assault rifles would be akin to saying we need to ban ford pickups because of that guy that ran down all those people a few years ago with a ford pickup. Besides the part of an ar-15 that has a serial number is the lower receiver hence only that one part is considered a firearm. All the other parts, barrel, upper receiver, pistol grips, rails, trigger kits, everything you need is readily available without any type of license background check or anything. Furthermore 80% receivers can also be bought online which are not considered receivers because they are only 80% machined hence they are NOT firearms. So then anyone with some mechanical skill can then own an ar-15 without any checks on background or firearm license. Nevertheless all other types of firearms would still exist even if assault rifles were banned. War and killing have been going on since the beginning of humanity far be it from this writer to grasp what underlies this phenomenon but if you consider the fact that 50 million people were killed worldwide during WWII, it would seem that if a weapons ban were to take place THAT would have been the catalyst to make it happen, not that any of the recent mass shootings are any less dispicable

    Like

  20. We have a second amendment to the constitution, which must be held sacrosanct over all other amendments.”

    Well, no. The 2nd has always been harangued by political leadership uncomfortable with am armed public, as such it has always been treated wrongly as a second-class right most of the time.

    “The constitution was made to be a malleable document. It’s intentionally vague. ”

    It is not “intentionally vague”. It only seems “intentionally vague” to those who’s political ambitions would be stymied by it.

    “We can enact gun control without infringing on the right to bear arms. You can have your deer rifle. You can have your shotgun that you love to shoot clay pigeons with. You can have your target pistol. ”

    The founders were neither afraid of rampaging deer or concerned they would be stripped of the chance to hunt. They feared tyranny, which is why the 2A exists.

    “Seriously, though, do you really think you’d be able to hold off the government with an individual level weapon? Because you wouldn’t.”

    Wrong question. The real question is whether a tyrannical post-constitutional government that has lost the consent of the governed could control and subjugate millions of armed civilians. Guns give civvies some power and in war and politics, power attracts more power. A military occupation of the US, even by its own rogue government would be a hell of a lot more like Vietnam than Desert Storm.

    I thank you for your service, but I see nothing compelling about your opinion.

    Also, I own zero firearms.

    Like

  21. These comments make me laugh but the more I read the more upset I get. I completely understand both sides of the argument. The outright aggressive comments of those who are against gun control perfectly demonstrate why we need it. People kill people. That’s true. But by regulating who can access these deadly weapons, we can decrease how many people they are able to kill. As a collective nation, we have decided hundreds of innocent peoples’ lives are worth the ease of buying a gun.

    Like

    1. But by regulating who can access these deadly weapons, we can decrease how many people they are able to kill.

      These regulations already exist.

      * 1934 National Firearms Act

      * 1968 Gun Control Act

      *1986 Hughes Amendment

      * 1993 Brady Bill

      * 1996 Lautenberg Amendment

      Like

  22. https://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/man-armed-with-an-ar-15-kills-two-people-in-houston-rush-hour-traffic?fbclid=IwAR0NW47TfFGRm7mltbZk2dyu9uwxDUhtB9kN4nY4-t5hoN0gRUBu_-il3_8 Yet the killings continue. This article was written in Feb 2019. As of this writing in August 2019 more killing has been going on since Feb. When will it end? HOUSTON — A cold-blooded attack on a Houston freeway Thursday has left investigators scratching their heads.

    Two people were killed in the middle of rush hour traffic, and the suspects got away.

    “This is a scary event to happen at 6 o’clock at night in a busy freeway.” said assistant chief Bobby Dobbins.

    A targeted attack on the East freeway. One vehicle rammed the other and spun that vehicle out. A car with two men inside, police say, hit the silver sedan spinning it around and as it rolled downhill.

    Both suspects got out. One got people’s attention.

    “One of the witnesses saw the weapon he’s familiar with guns and he believes it was an AR-15.” Dobbins said.

    Police say as the victims’ car rolled towards the gunman, he fired multiple rounds. Both men inside were killed.

    According to police sources, a large trash bag with marijuana was in their car. Investigators are looking at all possible motives.

    “Road rage, an accident, narcotics, we just don’t know yet.” said Dobbins.

    The suspects took off, leaving behind a crime scene on the freeway.

    Police are asking for the public’s help. What some drivers may have thought was just an accident, turned out to be deliberate.

    “Call HPD and please let us know what you saw. The slightest thing could help us.” Dobbins said.

    Police say another driver, who carries a pistol in his vehicle for personal protection, feared for his life and fired at the shooter.

    They do not know if he was hit. The victims have not been identified.

    Like

    1. Your point?
      Of course the “killing will continue”. Humans have been killing humans since Caine and Abel. We have also become more efficient at it. There are 400 million plus guns in the hands of 80 – 100 Million law-abiding gun owners in the US. Most of the “gun violence” is done by people who are prohibited from owning guns. Y’all scream “Do Something!’….I agree…but do something that will work. Do you really think joe gangster is going to go through a BGC? Do you really think he cares is “assault weapons” are banned? How about a 30-day waiting period? Sure, “hey, Joe, thanks for the $$$ but I can’t give it to you for 30 days”….

      So, please…come up with something that will limit criminal access to guns. I’ll support that 100%. But, anything short of absolute, total 100% confiscation of guns, will have little effect on criminal use, and the killing will continue.

      Like

  23. What I do t like about this article us that it teaches which weapon is the best for shooting people, why it’s the best, where you can buy it, and how old you need to be. Stop being a damn idiot and educating potential shooters on this shit. All you needed to say was…”I’m a Veteran I know how to shoot guns let’s be honest you don’t need a people killing weapon, kids are dying stop fucking around.” Your whole article was wordy and educational for killers…bravo idiot

    Like

    1. With all due respect, I believe there are two problems with this reasoning.
      1) It’s not like he is revealing a secret place to buy the weapons and a secret formula to build a bomb out of household product. He is simply saying that you can buy a gun in Walmart and that it’s an easy one to use. I’m pretty sure that all Americans over the age of 14 knows that! Even more, I’m pretty sure that any respectful mass murder will easily find that information in one of a the millions other sources that exist out there
      1) Plus, if we’re not allowed to state the problematic aspects of a situation because we must not “give the idea” then I would say that your first order of business would be to talk to the media, the press, the politician and EVERYONE other people that talk about that problem because as soon as you talk about it… it’s done. Someone, somewhere who really want to go with it will get the idea on how to go about it. At least, by talking about it, the author plant a seed in some mind to reflect on the real aspects of the problem.

      Like

  24. Reblogged this on Magick Thoughts SL ❤ Le meilleur de Second Life and commented:
    My Blog is usually about a virtual world. The world of Second Life. But today I am sharing this well written post by someone who knows a thing or two about why we DON’T need AR-15s in the hands of the general public and why we never ever will need them at hands reach. Anastasia Writes says they are a deadly people killing (what they are designed for) TOY that no one needs to ever ever have their hands on. I am a strong believer in gun regulations and passing new laws to keep our people safe from mass shootings from hostile, hate filled, prejudice toting “Americans.” Maybe I should say “Muricans.” I think Second Life has sims for this sort of RP with huds and virtual weapons right? Is Trump right for doing something about violent games? I think the focus should be on the ability of purchasing weapons of war that are designed to kill people. Walmart is now organising their store for less violent content at eye level but will not stop gun sales.. what? I think twice now about even going there anymore. The anxiety is high. When will we do something productive with gun laws and purchasing ammo? Maybe the ammo should be focussed on… you can’t shoot a people killing machine with no ammo. These are my thoughts and I am sticking to them.
    —AmandaMagick
    Please read this well written blog by Anastasia Writes!

    Like

  25. Imagine all the people who told us last month that trump had concentration camps telling us this month that we should disarm.
    What the hell is wrong with that mentality?

    Like

  26. I know I’ll be echoing allot of other folks on here so I’ll keep this short. The M-4 and AR-15 are nearly identical as weapons. The M-4 is a military weapon, therefore so too is the AR-15. They are both labeled legally and in the popular vernacular as Assault Weapons, not hunting weapons, not handguns, but assault weapons. The purpose of the military is to engage in warfare when required, therefore the military is equipped with weapons of war, not weapons for hunting, not improvised weapons, but weapons specifically intended to kill people with a minimum of effort and maximum efficiency. For the same reason that we do not give civilians RPG’s, civilians should not have access to weapons like an AR-15. Quite simply there is no reason or excuse for civilians to own military grade weaponry.

    Like

    1. And yet you cannot point to a single military anywhere in the world which uses an AR-15 as its armament.
      You know what that makes it? NOT MILITARY GRADE.

      Like

  27. As the comments section here has recently gained new life, I will post these points.

    – These people claim that we “do nothing” regarding murder. How then, are murderers in prison? Is it just sheer coincidence that they are serving life sentences or on death row? If not, why is punishing murderers not considered “doing something”?

    – “This happens nowhere else”. Does “nowhere else” include Brazil, Jamaica, Mexico, and South Africa?

    – These people claim that no one is talking about banning guns. How then, did guns get banned in Chicago, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.? How did guns get banned in South Carolina in 1902 if no one ever talked about banning guns?

    – These people claim to want “sensible” gun legislation. Why did none of them call for repealing the handgun bans in Chicago and Washington? Or for laws authorizing police to arbitrarily deny permits to carry firearms, even if the applicant meets all objective statutory criteria?

    – Washington, D.C. had a handgun ban in 1976. Were the shootings of Ronald Reagan and James Brady hoaxes? How would such a thing be possible if it was as difficult for John Hinckley to obtain a firearm as it was for Marion Barry to obtain cocaine?

    – These people say that state-level bans do not work because people simply smuggle guns from outside the jurisdiction, and we need national laws. We have national laws on marijuana, and marijuana is smuggled from outside the United States. In order for gun control laws to work, must the United States conquer the whole world? How many servicemen would be willing to fight in a war of conquest for the purpose of disarming Americans at home? How many foreign children would have to be killed to accomplish that objective?

    – Regarding universal background checks, how do they expect the police to catch a crack dealer selling firearms without running background checks if the police can not catch him for selling crack?

    – Kamala Harris, who at the time was the California Attorney General, said “Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon” If so, why should not county clerks like Kim Davis be able to use their discretion to determine who can marry?

    – The United States of America already has the highest rate of imprisonment per capita in the world. How many more prisons would have to be built to accommodate a new population of prisoners who had not even been accused of hurting anyone?

    – The Second Amendment is not the only constitutional provision with adverse public safety implication. While no murder conviction was ever thrown out on Second Amendment grounds, murder convictions have been thrown out on Fourth and Fifth and Sixth Amendment grounds. If these amendments were repealed (or ignored), it would be easier to punish criminals? How many lives would be saved? What would be the price for those lives?

    – More people are killed by black violence than mass shootings. What must be done about blacks? Are the anti-gun violence people willing to abrogate Constitutional protections to go after blacks? If not, what would stop a state that had already abrogated the Constitution regarding the right to keep and bear arms, from doing the same regarding black people?

    Like

  28. While the article is quite good, what brought me to write this are the comments below it. I mean… common… it’s frankly ridiculous. I’am a Canadian. Even worst, I’m a French-Canadian so I don’t expect my comment to carry a lot of weight but if you were to look around you, you would see that almost every other country in the world think the USA are very stupid about this gun thing.

    “Ho well we don’t care what other believe. They don’t understand”, one might say

    Well how can you know that if you are not even willing to examine the fact. The rest of the world knows your problem, we all know the solution and for us it is crystal clear. It’s like seeing a guy shooting himself in the foot, over and over again saying “HAAA that’s hurt” every time but continuing to shoot! You all know that you have like 3000% more mass shooting in your country than the next one and among the only one to sell military gun in WalMart without any control. I mean the relation is pretty easy to do. Plus other country had that problem and when they decided to put gun control in place, the mass murdering stopped (Australia). So it’s kind of tested solution.

    Yeah, I know, I’m Canadian (french) so I don’t know what I’m talking about. Well if it were just me I would agree but I travel a lot and I hate to say it to you guys but… Pretty much all of the rest of the world are on the same page on that.

    And the reason I’m writing this is that, when I read all the comments here, I’m completely and utterly blown away by all the bogus arguments made by all these stubborn “gun loving” american who cannot even stop one minute to put their believes in question and I’m sorry to say that you will see a loooooot more people dying because of this stubbornness.

    Like

    1. Plus other country had that problem and when they decided to put gun control in place, the mass murdering stopped (Australia). So it’s kind of tested solution.
      Oh really?

      Brazil has gun control.

      Honduras has gun control.

      Jamaica has gun control.

      Mexico has gun control.

      Russia has gun control.

      South Africa has gun control.

      Care to guess the criminal homicide rates?

      Like

      1. Control in Jamaica is not touted as a success story because it isn’t. On paper Jamaica has some pretty strong gun control laws but in reality these are completely undermined by a corrupt police force and armed gangs who are partly funded and supported by rival political parties including the ruling party. No gun control laws can work in that environment.

        Like

      2. And of course there’s always an apologist. You know the prohibitionists said the same thing: it would have worked so well if the cops weren’t so corrupt!
        Here’s the thing, prohibitions CAUSE black markets and corruption, not the other way around.

        Like

  29. The author is typical of most virtue signaling “liberals” who are slightly less ignorant than their non-military service brethren. And unless he dictated it by “stream of consciousness” into Dragon Naturally Speaking he lied about important aspects of its creation. If you lie about such an innocuous thing as when, where and the time limitations (15 minutes) in creating something “without editing” then you’re just not credible without some rehabilitation. And then only maybe.

    So you have a puff piece by a Portland Poof who did service stateside. That was honorable and I thank him. But his opinion and the issues raised in support of his opinion are not factually supported except in useless references. It’s a pure emotion driven virtue signal piece. Probably because of the pervasiveness of his ignorance of the 2nd Amendment. An ailment that is widespread in Leftists.

    I too served. I too qualified Expert but not on the M-4. I qualified on the M16A1 with full auto capability. Expert in Grenades too. And also carried the M203 Grenade launcher. I served in Korea on the DMZ, spent time at 4P1 Firebase and 2 tours at Fort Bragg with the 82nd Airborne and have my Basic Parachutist Badge. I subsequently graduated law school and practiced law for many years as well. The author claims no expertise in the law but talks, like most Leftists talk, like he has superior command of the meaning of the provisions of the Constitution.

    The AR-15 and it’s variants are not for hunting or home defense, although they can and are so employed. I own mine for one principal reason and that is the reason contemplated by the STATES. Meeting in their conventions to consider ratification of the US Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation the various delegates revealed their distrust of the “limited, enumerated powers” argument.

    They did not trust the silence of the proposal on certain basic rights. They lacked confidence that the claimed “obvious” withholding of federal power was protection then or in the future. They knew men are inherently corrupt and those in power in later years would “forget” the limits. They were correct.

    Semi-automatic firearms with high capacity magazines like the AR-15 family are so that the American citizen has a fighting chance against tyranny emerging domestically or from a foreign actor. The debates over wording reveal one interesting fact… the consistent concern (and drafts establish this) you find is this: it was that the Amendment language NOT REQUIRE those with religious objections be forced to do so. In essence the Infringement of religious values being the only thing barring a universal duty.

    Lack of intellectual integrity in the Leftist gun-grabbers and the ignorant useful idiots parroting the talking points should embarrass the Democrats but they are without remorse as they have no conscience.

    Like

  30. https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-gun-enthusiast-still-claim-their-right-to-bear-arms-is-more-important-than-public-safety/answer/Paul-Harding-14

    All of your Constitutional Rights come at the cost of safety.

    For example, you would be much safer if I could search houses, cars, and people whenever I wanted to, for any reason, or no reason at all. I’d catch more real bad guys. You know those stories about creeps who keep sex slaves locked in their basements for years? I’d find those victims and rescue them. That neighbor of yours who might have a meth lab that is going to send poisonous fumes into your child’s bedroom window, or explode and burn down your house? I’d find out for sure whether a lab was there.

    How about all those guys who are probably child molesters, and we’ve got some evidence, but it isn’t enough to convict in front of a jury, especially with that defense attorney throwing doubt all over our evidence? Those guys are on the street right now, and a child you love may be their next victim.

    Give up your rights under the 4th,5th,and 6th amendments, and I’ll make the world safer for you. No question about it.

    The only problem is that if you give up all those rights, which are really just restrictions on the things I’m allowed to do to you, what’s going to keep you safe from me?

    Every right you have increases your danger from other people who share that right. Free speech? It allows monsters to spread hateful messages, possibly about a group to which you belong, just the same as it allows you to petition your government with legitimate grievances.

    That free speech even allows you to argue in favor of discarding freedom and liberty as just too dangerous to trust in the hands of ordinary people. Now that, my friend, is what scares me – that people with opinions like that will spread them to weak-willed individuals who haven’t really thought through the consequences. I won’t argue for taking that right away, though, despite the dangers. That would be even more scary than you are.

    Yes, some people in a free society are always going to abuse those freedoms. Criminals are going to hide behind the 4th amendment to conceal the evidence of their crimes. People who commit horrific acts are going to hire excellent defense attorneys who can convince a jury that doubt exists. And, yes, some people are going to use guns to commit murders.

    Freedom is scary, but lack of freedom is scarier.

    Like

  31. “At this rate, it’s not if your kids, or mine, are involved in a school shooting, it’s when. One of these happens every 60 hours on average in the US. If you think it can’t affect you, you’re wrong. Dead wrong. So let’s talk.”

    Yes, let’s talk. That’s wrong. School is safer than society at large, and society at large is safer now than at any time in the last 60 years.

    As someone said above, freedom is scary and sometimes dangerous, but lack of freedom is much scarier and vastly more dangerous.

    End of discussion, thanks for playing!

    Like

  32. Good, thought-provoking post, Anastasia! I have one comment.

    > “At this rate, it’s not if your kids, or mine, are involved in a school shooting, it’s when. One of these happens every 60 hours on average in the US. If you think it can’t affect you, you’re wrong. Dead wrong. So let’s talk.”

    As others have posted, the “every 60 hours” claim is not correct. When I saw that, I thought that it could not be correct because that would mean an average of almost three school shootings per week, and they would all be big news stories. In my experience, that’s just not the case, but I did fact check the claim, and this is what I found. From 2015 to 2018, the US has had a school shooting every 77 *days* on average. (Source: https://www.kcur.org/post/are-school-shootings-becoming-more-frequent-we-ran-numbers#stream/0)

    You might want to edit that bit just to prevent people from dismissing your credibility based on a stat that seems to be inaccurate by an entire order of magnitude.

    Like

Leave a Reply to Steve Johnson Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s