Althouse: "Whether someone owns a gun is a more powerful predictor of a person’s political party than..."

December 18, 2012

"Whether someone owns a gun is a more powerful predictor of a person’s political party than..."

"... her gender, whether she identifies as gay or lesbian, whether she is Hispanic, whether she lives in the South or a number of other demographic characteristics."

Observes Nate Silver, and yet 31% of Democrats own guns (compared to 58% of Republicans). 31% seems like a lot to me, especially when you consider that women are more likely to be Democrats. Women are less likely to own guns, but not by that much: 37% to 48%.

Americans like their guns, and yet the elite class is suddenly adamant about gun control. I think it's funny that those who act like they're so much wiser than the clinging-to-their-guns peasants so often let it show that they don't know what they're talking about.

272 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 272 of 272

sparrow said...: I'm not buying that there's nothing you can do about gun violence. Education and a high frequency of concealed carry among law abiding citizens in all walks of life will greatly reduce the frequency of these events because if 5-10% carry everywhere legally and are trained the next wacko simply will be prevented from killing as many by the armed citizenry. It's not rocket science, but it does require something our elites don't have: trust and respect for he common American.; 12/19/12, 9:07 AM
garage mahal said...: "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's pretty plain to me.

I noticed a lot of people cut out the first part of the clause "well regulated militia". Why is that I wonder? Did the founders intend to mean that a "well regulated militia" to be individual rights to own arms? I doubt it.; 12/19/12, 9:09 AM
Brian Brown said...: machine said...
Do I have a Constitutional right to walk down the street carrying a bazooka?

You're fucking silly and stupid.; 12/19/12, 9:11 AM
Brian Brown said...: sparrow said...

Don't see why that's silly - availability of a useless service is not getting what he "needed" - your word. He clearly "needed" much more than the non-service he got.

It wasn't just available he was being treated.

You left that part out.; 12/19/12, 9:12 AM
Big Mike said...: @garage, I read the second amendment to mean that a "well-regulated militia" is an explicit benefit of the explicit right to keep and bear arms.; 12/19/12, 9:12 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Garage: Because this is what it reads in total:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Note the commas? That means that there is a break in the thought. The author is saying: A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That is one thought. The second thought is: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That's clear in a plain, simple textual reading.

Diagram the sentence, if that helps.; 12/19/12, 9:13 AM
X said...: hey gayrage, I noticed you left out "the people" in the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.; 12/19/12, 9:13 AM
Big Mike said...: @sparrow, you have put your finger precisely on the problem. The Democrats' leadership absolutely does not trust nor do they respect us.

The kind of snark garage and shiloh and Inga dish out is a reflection of the contempt their "Progressive" masters hold for us.; 12/19/12, 9:15 AM
Matt Sablan said...: In short: What you would have is a noun: Right (with modifiers of "The," meaning this specific right, "of the people," who owns the right, "to keep and bear Arms," the kind of right";

The verb: be infringed (with modifiers shall not.) The rest of the sentence is an introductory clause which describes not the -kind- of right. It is simply adding information. You have a complete thought there:

Noun: Militia (a well-regulated one, so, not a specific militia, just one that is well-regulated)

Verb: being necessary (or, is necessary for those not up on their being verbs.) This is further explained as to the security of a free state. These are two separate thoughts.; 12/19/12, 9:16 AM
garage mahal said...: The kind of snark garage and shiloh and Inga dish out is a reflection of the contempt their "Progressive" masters hold for us.

So you're incapable of debating a topic, but you are capable of linking in html. Bravo Big Mike. Bravo!; 12/19/12, 9:18 AM
X said...: if they had intended it to be limited to the militia, they would have used "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". they didn't.; 12/19/12, 9:19 AM
Sofa King said...: I noticed a lot of people cut out the first part of the clause "well regulated militia". Why is that I wonder? Did the founders intend to mean that a "well regulated militia" to be individual rights to own arms? I doubt it.

I don't. Please feel free to read Heller and point out the bits you think the Supreme Court got wrong.; 12/19/12, 9:20 AM
garage mahal said...: @garage, I read the second amendment to mean that a "well-regulated militia" is an explicit benefit of the explicit right to keep and bear arms.

The courts didn't read it that way until 2008.; 12/19/12, 9:21 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Garage: If it makes you feel better, you could just say that the right to bear arms was hidden by a penumbra only recently discovered by the Supreme Court.; 12/19/12, 9:24 AM
Sofa King said...: The courts didn't read it that way until 2008.

That was the first time the issue was squarely put before them.; 12/19/12, 9:26 AM
kcom said...: ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Doesn't seem to lend itself to a broad or narrow interpretation. It's about as straightforward a set of words as you can get. Clearly the people are free to own and bear arms.

"I don't think it is funny that the NYT editorializes on 12/18 that there is no individual right to gun ownership."

If the New York Times can't understand plain English then they are in the wrong business.; 12/19/12, 9:27 AM
garage mahal said...: I don't need to "feel better". Just pointing out factual info. Sometimes conservatives originalists like Scalia embrace the "living constitution".; 12/19/12, 9:27 AM
Matt Sablan said...: I want to treat you like a worthy debate partner Garage, but even when you seem to be on the cusp, you just don't make that last climb.; 12/19/12, 9:28 AM
Known Unknown said...: The entire point of the second amendment is to empower the citizenry to defend itself against its own government, if need be.

To eliminate this basic right condemns the country to a potential future of disabling dissent, and exacting control.

That's where the militia part comes in.; 12/19/12, 9:29 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: People above have asserted that AR type rifles are not good for hunting. But, it should first be noted that those rifles are not limited to .223 caliber, and, indeed, earlier versions of the original design were in higher calibers. The .223 caliber was selected for the M-16 in order to maximize the number of rounds that a soldier could carry in the field, esp. since the weapons were capable of full automatic fire. And, higher caliber AR type weapons are routinely sold today.

Another thing to keep in mind is that almost half (49%) of the rifles sold last year in the U.S. were AR type semi-automatics, with a significant number (maybe 1/4) being used for hunting.

Why the popularity? For one thing, we are nearing 3 generations of military taught on this platform. We are nearing 50 years that this has been the standard issue weapon for the U.S. military. My father's generation learned on the M-1 Garand and M-2 Carbine (which is what my father carried). My generation mostly carried M-16s in Vietnam.

But the AR-15s and M-16s of the 1960s are far different from the guns today. At a distance, externally, they may look similar, but a lot of things have changed, and a lot of modern technology has gone into the newer weapons. And, indeed, the most technologically advanced privately available weapons today all share one characteristic - they tend to be black and constructed utilizing composites or plastics. In other words, the type of scary looking guns most vulnerable to gun grabbers.

One of the innovations that is found almost exclusively on these scary looking mostly black weapons are the rail systems that allow the guns to be easily customized. Scopes, night vision, lights, grips, etc. can be easily added and replaced. Our military makes full use of that with their M-16s and M-4s, as is readily apparent if you see pictures of soldiers and Marines in Iraq, and esp. Afghanistan. But, that feature is similarly attractive to civilian gun owners. They can continuously customize their guns (and, this includes many hand guns today with similar features), just as they did their cars and stereo systems in an earlier time.

And, yes, there is also the popular depiction of firearms on TV and in movies. It is rare to see anything except AK-47s for the bad guys and black composite or plastic type rifles (and now shotguns) for both good and bad, with the rare exception of specialty weapons, like many sniper rifles.

So, one of the reasons that AR type semiautomatics are not going to be banned in the near future is that they have gone completely mainstream, and are now the most popular type of rifle on the market. That wasn't true when the Clinton era Assault Weapon Ban was enacted.; 12/19/12, 9:29 AM
X said...: that's just rejecting the latest dem anti-2nd spin. the right existed before 2008 gayrage.; 12/19/12, 9:30 AM
kcom said...: "@garage, I read the second amendment to mean that a "well-regulated militia" is an explicit benefit of the explicit right to keep and bear arm."

I would say it this way. That the people (i.e. individuals) keeping and bearing arms is an explicit prerequisiste to the creation of a militia. You must have the one to get to the other. Therefore the one is explicitly acknowledged as being a given.; 12/19/12, 9:32 AM
AllenS said...: machine said...
Do I have a Constitutional right to walk down the street carrying a bazooka?

I'm going to give you some good advice. When you turn 21 years of age, even though you'll be old enough to purchase alcoholic beverages, you have no constitutional right to drink and drive.; 12/19/12, 9:33 AM
MadisonMan said...: Diagram the sentence, if that helps.

That is a difficult sentence to diagram. The Founding Fathers could have used a good Editor. What's the point of the last comma, for example.; 12/19/12, 9:35 AM
William said...: I wonder if the dramatic decrease in crime has not worked against gun supporters. I think a gun is an effective deterrent against home invaders car jackers, and muggers. Against paranoid schizophrenics not so much. In fact, the widespread availability of guns greatly increases the chances of their acquiring a firearm......If people are afraid of crime, they'll want to keep their guns. If people are afraid of paranoid schizophrenics, they'll want to limit the availability of guns.....Two things I know: we'll never eliminate nuts and we'll never eliminate guns.; 12/19/12, 9:35 AM
LilyBart said...: I don't think the left values the Constitution (Obama himself has complained that it didn't "allow him to do enough").

I don't think they value freedom and liberty. They seem to believe that we can make a great society (fair and safe) if we turn over control of our lives and money to government. Honestly, I don't know where they get the faith. Government is made up of fallible people – ambitious, self-interested, biased people.

Leftists want the same people who were in charge of the consulate at Bengazi to protect us. They want the same people who invested (and lost) over half a billion dollars in Solendra to control our money and our businesses. Where do they get the faith?

Witness the $16+ trillion debt (and growing) - What do the leftist think will happen to our safety and security when our out-of-control spending collapses the economy?; 12/19/12, 9:37 AM
Rusty said...: I noticed a lot of people cut out the first part of the clause "well regulated militia". Why is that I wonder?

Actually we gun owners don't. If you use you OED and look up the word "regulated", you'll notice it has several different meanings. In the late 18th century and early 19th century it was taken to mean, in this case, qualified, or able to do the job. Much like clocks of that era were said to be "regulated' if they were capable of keeping good time. The meaning here is qualified. Not controlled.
"A well regulated militia...." is actually the subordinate clause in that phrase. That was the style of writing back then.
Today it might read;
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well ordered militia being necessary for a free state.
The militia, of course, being every adult male or female capable of bearing their own arms.; 12/19/12, 9:42 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "What's the point of the last comma, for example."

-- Spite, primarily, I think.; 12/19/12, 9:42 AM
raf said...: machine said...
Do I have a Constitutional right to walk down the street carrying a bazooka

Let's say you do. It would be natural for people to question your judgement in the absence of a credible threat of attack by armored vehicles. I would have no problem with laws addressing appropriate behavior with firearms, but am skeptical of the value and effectiveness of laws addressing ownership. ("Appropriate behavior" should be defined to fit local circumstances -- a risk of "inappropriate definition" exists, of course.) If we take the "well-regulated militia" seriously, machine guns and anti-tank weapons are not inappropriate, but their deployment in the absence of attack or insurrection would be.; 12/19/12, 9:42 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: I noticed a lot of people cut out the first part of the clause "well regulated militia". Why is that I wonder? Did the founders intend to mean that a "well regulated militia" to be individual rights to own arms? I doubt it.

You are essentially fighting yesterday's battle. That argument was common into the beginning of the 21st Century, but scholarship, and then High Court jurisprudence have relegated that argument to the dustbins of history. The militia phrase is now seen as one of the reasons for the prohibition on infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. Nothing more. What is paramount is the right to keep and bear arms.

That said, one of the interesting things that has happened in the last couple of years is that the Miller case has switched from being a limitation on the right to keep and bear arms, to a limitation on limitations of those rights. Miller is now being read as guaranteeing the right to own military type weapons (though full automatics, private cannon, grenades, nuclear weapons, etc. are still either heavily regulated or banned entirely). How can you have a well trained civilian militia, if they aren't familiar with infantry weaponry - notably AR type rifles and semiautomatic pistols.; 12/19/12, 9:43 AM
traditionalguy said...: Garage...Fear not. The well regulated Militia was the only military armed forces not Federal as the Federalists tried to get the Constitution confirmed by promising the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

So #2 does aim itself at the prohibition of the Feds to disarm the states' forces. An argument can be made that the States can do as they please on guns, but the Feds still never have any say in prohibition.

Ergo: prohibition on actual machine guns, bazookas and stinger missiles is a 100% state issue in each State. Do you prefer that interpretation, or do you want to let the righteous citizens have rifles and concealed carry pistols and STFU?; 12/19/12, 9:49 AM
garage mahal said...: What is paramount is the right to keep and bear arms

Of course. Because you want it to be. But even Scalia says that right is not "unlimited".; 12/19/12, 9:49 AM
Known Unknown said...: To some of the progressives here, I would ask if they would've liked to defend themselves against the once-inevitable Christian Theocracy we were becoming.; 12/19/12, 9:50 AM
Tim said...: "What is your problem? "Assault rifle" is a well-known term of art; and yes they are full-auto or burst-fire, and no they aren't illegal per se as Tim claimed."

Owning fully automatic weapons are illegal, unless you obtain the proper permits (as I referenced with my 10:36 pm comment: [with the exception of those with federal firearms licenses, a group so small and so tightly regulated they are inconsequential to the discussion]); as a practical matter, the reality of obtaining these permits, as you note, is so steep as to render the discussion of "automatic firing weapons" or "assault rifles (common definition) as somehow needing to be banned as a result of Sandy Hook or any other similar tragedy dishonest.; 12/19/12, 9:56 AM
kcom said...: "I noticed a lot of people cut out the first part of the clause 'well regulated militia'. Why is that I wonder?

Because, as the sentence is written, it's basically irrelevant.

Do a substitution and see if anything important changes:

X being true, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

X could be any number of things, but the conclusion of the logic is the same: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.; 12/19/12, 9:58 AM
garage mahal said...: Because, as the sentence is written, it's basically irrelevant.

So the first clause of the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant? Whoa! That doesn't like a very original or textual interpretation!; 12/19/12, 10:08 AM
kcom said...: Possible values for X being true:

Brigands and layabouts being an ever-present threat,...

Invasion by elements of the King's army being a constant possibility,...

The risk of overweening government imposing itself arbitrarily on the populace,...

Apples, being beneficial to one's constitution (get it), and with orchards under threat of apple thieves,...

Or even, according to the logic of the sentence, something as inane as:

Since water is wet, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

would be wholly true in authorizing the private possession of firearms.; 12/19/12, 10:16 AM
machine said...: "there are reasonable restrictions allowed on these rights"

this was my point...no one is trying an all-out band on the ownership of weapons as claimed...just reasonable restrictions...; 12/19/12, 10:18 AM
kcom said...: "the first clause of the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant?"

It's irrelevant to the conclusion, yes. The conclusion stands, regardless of that clause, as I've shown above. The amendment does not establish a militia, it establishes the right to keep and bear arms. The militia clause provides context but no authorization of any right. The second part does.; 12/19/12, 10:20 AM
Known Unknown said...: just reasonable restrictions...

The issue is will these restrictions provide relief from such horrible acts, or fail like most of the previous restrictions have?; 12/19/12, 10:21 AM
kcom said...: "no one is trying an all-out band on the ownership of weapons as claimed"

No one? Seriously? It's a big country.; 12/19/12, 10:22 AM
machine said...: ammo gets old btw..can't hold it until the apocalypse...; 12/19/12, 10:24 AM
shiloh said...: The gun lobby serves one purpose and one purpose only. To help gun shops sell more guns, rifles, assault weapons, etc..

Much like the tobacco lobby wanted folk to buy more cigarettes regardless of the consequences.

Supply and demand!

Let freedom ring ...

As always, America survives despite itself.; 12/19/12, 10:26 AM
Michael said...: I own my father's Smith and Wesson 38 which he traded for his service weapon after the second world war. I am going to buy a pistol this weekend. Because.; 12/19/12, 10:38 AM
Eric said...: @Bruce, a few years back I heard a network anchorwoman admit that she was terrified of semi-automatic handguns (she called them "automatics," but as you point out that's simply her ignorance speaking)

Her usage isn't technically correct, but she's not really wrong, either. From the wiki page:

The language surrounding automatic, semi-automatic, self-loading, etc., often causes confusion due to differences in technical usage between different countries and differences in popular usage. For example, the term "automatic pistol" technically refers to a machine pistol which is capable of firing multiple round bursts for a single pull of the trigger, although in popular US usage it is also used as a synonym for a semi-automatic pistol. In the case of pistols, an 'automatic pistol', a 'semi-automatic pistol', or a 'self-loading pistol', all usually imply a handgun that is semi-automatic, self-loading, and magazine-fed with a magazine that is removable, producing one shot fired for each trigger pull.; 12/19/12, 11:21 AM
Eric said...: The gun lobby serves one purpose and one purpose only. To help gun shops sell more guns, rifles, assault weapons, etc..

You might want to look at the numbers on this. The gun lobby in the US is far out-sized for the industry you think is using it to sell guns. It's not the industry that drives the lobby, it's gun owners.; 12/19/12, 11:26 AM
grackle said...: If people are afraid of paranoid schizophrenics, they'll want to limit the availability of guns.

I fear "paranoid schizophrenics" yet I do NOT want to limit the availability of guns any more than the availability of guns are presently limited. Instead I favor the institutionalization of paranoid schizophrenics. I think there are plenty of others who feel as I do.; 12/19/12, 12:19 PM
damikesc said...: Fussing about usage of the term is pedantic and a diversion.

Given that the Feds still want to ban "assault weapons" --- then the usage of the term isn't a diversion.

It's the point.

Inane generality notwithstanding ...

Abortion

Contraception/birth control

When a dude is threatening violence, both will help women immensely, no doubt.

I love the belief that gun rights supporters are "nuts" for opposing "common sense regulations" -- but abortion rights advocates aren't for opposing partial birth abortion.; 12/19/12, 12:45 PM
ed said...: @ garage

"I don't need to "feel better". Just pointing out factual info. Sometimes conservatives originalists like Scalia embrace the "living constitution"."

Utter nonsense.

Past SCOTUS never bothered to pronounce a judgement on that aspect of the 2nd Amendment simply because the clear and unequivocal wording of the Amendment makes such determinations unnecessary.

In the past SCOTUS reviews they made judgements on specific weapons on whether or not they fell under the sway of the 2nd Amendment or not.; 12/19/12, 12:48 PM
Hyphenated American said...: "So Althouse, after you get done laughing at everyone discussing gun control in America, what's your solution?"

It's a rather popular and wrong idea, that there are "solutions" to violence and crime. There are in fact, no solutions, there are only trade-offs. It's unfortunate that American public education failed to teach critical thinking to the liberals.; 12/19/12, 12:49 PM
Hyphenated American said...: I wonder if the DNC is ready to propose common-sense regulation of abortions.; 12/19/12, 12:50 PM
Hyphenated American said...: "The gun lobby serves one purpose and one purpose only. To help gun shops sell more guns, rifles, assault weapons, etc.."

Anti-gun "non-profit" lobby serves one purpose, and one purpose only - to help liberals ignite passions and collect money from the public. It's easy to see this because there was no positive correlation between gun control laws and lower crime rates.; 12/19/12, 12:53 PM
Eric said...: Or common sense control of the press. It's no more nutty than "common sense" gun control, given the misinformation our media is putting out about this incident. And no more at odds with the constitution.; 12/19/12, 12:53 PM
William said...: Just at this moment in time, people are more afraid of schizos than they are of criminals. Crime is a more prevalent and enduring problem than craziness but the crazy shooters are currently having their season in the sun....I think the huge media play that these crazies are getting will encourage further crimes of this nature. However, this type of atrocity favors the arguments of gun control advocates so don't expect the media to put a lid on it anytime soon.; 12/19/12, 1:00 PM
Michael McNeil said...: That's the way it works in CA. In most counties you can only get a CCW permit if you know someone.

Actually, “most” of California (if we're talking number of counties as opposed to places where most of the people live) is more reasonable, CCW-wise, as this map makes clear.; 12/19/12, 1:22 PM
Michael McNeil said...: Since we've been talking about women going armed as a defense against rape, here's a cute video by a woman blogger demonstrating how to concealed carry a full sized semi-automatic pistol while wearing a slinky dress.; 12/19/12, 1:38 PM
Michael McNeil said...: Garage prattles on about Scalia vis-a-vis the Heller decision, but what he's oblivious of (or trying to obfuscate to us about) is that Heller was unanimous — not in the overall decision, but as to whether the 2nd amendment protects an individual right — all the justices, including the liberal wing, were on board. Not a one defended a supposed collective-right interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

In Heller Justice Breyer wrote a dissent which was joined by all four dissenters from the overall decision, in which as he put it: “I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an ‘individual’ right — i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.”

Face it, Garage: you're beating a horse that's well and truly dead — you just haven't realized it yet (which shows just how aware you are on this general topic). Same advice one might have given to Susan Rice: Better upgrade your talking points; you're looking like a fool.; 12/19/12, 2:11 PM
Eric said...: Actually, “most” of California (if we're talking number of counties as opposed to places where most of the people live) is more reasonable, CCW-wise, as this map makes clear.

Heh. That link gives me a "database error". But let me rephrase to "the counties in which most of the state's population reside", and, not coincidentally, the counties in which you'd most like to have a CCW permit.; 12/19/12, 3:51 PM
Michael K said...: "I noticed a lot of people cut out the first part of the clause "well regulated militia". Why is that I wonder? Did the founders intend to mean that a "well regulated militia" to be individual rights to own arms? I doubt it."

garage, are you aware of the definition of "militia" at the time the Constitution was written ? All males between the age of 15 and 45 ?; 12/19/12, 5:12 PM
DADvocate said...: I wonder why Silver used the word "powerful" instead of "stronger." We deal with stats every day at my work, "stronger" is much more commonly used to describe statistical relationships than "powerful." Was he feeling the power of gun ownership?; 12/19/12, 5:22 PM
Anonymous said...: She's going to shoot herself in the ass, silly girl.; 12/19/12, 6:24 PM
1charlie2 said...: I have been watching and participating in the debate, and the political actions surrounding gun control for well over 30 years.

The problem of addressing gun control (firearms regulation for you law types) remains two-fold:

First, without exception, advocates for significantly more "control" are completely ignorant of the subjects of (as Wright and Rossi wrote) "Weapons, crime, and violence in America." (excellent reading, by the way)

And second, amazingly, they are utterly unashamed of this, and never seek to reduce or eliminate that ignorance.

I harken back to Chris Morton, who decades ago brilliantly summed it up (paraphrasing):

"The problem with trying to debate gun control is that advocated of gun control are hopelessly ignorant. It's like arguing abortion rights with someone who thinks the Stork brings babies. You cannot reach common ground with someone who is not dealing in facts."

If, in fact, any advocate of gun control would like to reach common ground, I suggest learning -- politely -- about firearms and their uses, both useful and nefarious.

Provided that

a. You realize that, unless you have studied the subject carefully, almost everything you "know" is in fact, demonstrably wrong,

b. You inquire BEFORE pontificating in your ignorance and thereby proving your arrogance, and

c. inquiries are not of the "have you stopped beating your wife yet ?" variety, you will find most of us on the other side are quite willing to discuss it.

d. you try to learn not only from people "on your side," (i.e. listen to the echo chamber), but from opponents of further restrictions.

However, I can count on my fingers the number of advocates of truly strong gun-control who could even make it past the first point. Most notable was James Wright at Tulane, who came ". . . to understand that they [proponents of further gun control] are barking up the wrong tree."

And fewer still who made it past all four.

To those advocates of gun control: Isn't a strong policy position worth researching carefully ? Would you take advice on any subject -- plumbing, the law, psychopharmacology, chess -- from a person who never spent time learning about it ?

If you do not have understanding of existing firearms control laws, how can you rationally advocate for more ?

If you do not understand the four categories of rifles, single-shot, repeaters, semi-automatics, and automatics, how can you rationally defend claims for or against their suitability to hunting, defense, or private ownership ?

I certainly don't say you have to be an expert. But understand that should you, as certain politicians are wont to do, make ludicrous claims that those of us familiar with firearms know are false, we "tune you out."

And then you have the utter gall to claim we are being unreasonable.

Akin was an idiot to claim rape victims were less likely to get pregnant. But the unvarnished truth is that Schumer, Biden, and Feinstein are every bit as idiotic and wrong on the subject of firearms control.; 12/19/12, 6:58 PM
1charlie2 said...: @Ann

Are you not assaulting the animals with your rifles when you hunt?

Indeed they are :)

However, the point was that "assault rifle" has a specific DoD definition, based on its function not on cosmetics.

Because they possess fully-automatic capability, since 1934 they have been regulated at the federal level, and 13 (possibly more now) states banned their private ownership.

Additionally, none manufactured since 1986 can be privately owned, by federal law.

As a result of all this, discussions of "banning assault rifles" are moot, designed to distract and confuse the issue. Which is precisely the point.

Josh Sugarman, a brilliant strategist for the anti-gun-lobby (yes, there is one) once wrote

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

(Sugarmann, Josh (1988). Assault Weapons and Accessories in America. Washington, D.C.: Firearms Policy Project of the Violence Policy Center. ISBN 978-0-927291-00-2. Emphasis mine.)

In other words, honesty be damned, let's coin a new term to obfuscate the real issue, and make our position more likely to succeed. Brilliant propaganda, but dishonest as hell. Sadly, not atypical.; 12/19/12, 7:30 PM
Hyphenated American said...: Interestingly enough, having a bayonet could turn a peaceful legal rifle into a scary, evil, mass-murdering assault rifle accodring to the government regulations.; 12/19/12, 7:41 PM
Eric said...: Because they possess fully-automatic capability, since 1934 they have been regulated at the federal level, and 13 (possibly more now) states banned their private ownership.

I wish people would stop saying this. An assault rifle does not have to be capable of fully automatic fire. The M-16 is an assault rifle, and the version the military actually uses is not capable of fully automatic fire.; 12/19/12, 11:38 PM
Hyphenated American said...: "An assault rifle does not have to be capable of fully automatic fire. The M-16 is an assault rifle, and the version the military actually uses is not capable of fully automatic fire."

I hope you are not saying that US army is armed with M-16s capable ONLY of semi-automatic fire.; 12/20/12, 12:01 AM
Known Unknown said...: She's going to shoot herself in the ass, silly girl.

Did you notice how she deliberately did NOT place her finger on the trigger until she had unholstered the weapon and had it pointed forward? She kept the index finger straight and to the side.

She obviously knows what she's doing and has had adequate training in handling a firearm.

Unlike you, silly woman.; 12/20/12, 12:06 AM
Eric said...: I hope you are not saying that US army is armed with M-16s capable ONLY of semi-automatic fire.

I am saying what I said. The M-16 in use by the US military is an assault rifle and is not capable of fully automatic fire.

Three round burst is not full auto.; 12/20/12, 12:10 AM
Eric said...: Interestingly enough, having a bayonet could turn a peaceful legal rifle into a scary, evil, mass-murdering assault rifle accodring to the government regulations.

It doesn't even take a bayonet. All you need is a bayonet lug. It's amazing how scary a little circular piece of metal can be.

The funny thing is the bayonet's place on the modern military rifle is either completely gone or a function of tradition. I suspect this is going to go down in history as the last bayonet charge.; 12/20/12, 12:19 AM
Kirk Parker said...: Bruce Hayden @ 9:29am,

Very good point--the M16 and variants have been the standard service rifle for more than twice as long as the M1 Garand was.

William,

"I wonder if the dramatic decrease in crime has not worked against gun supporters."

I would say it has not, given the increasing support for gun rights seen in most surveys. Or do you mean the increase in support would be even higher? That's certainly possible.; 12/20/12, 1:54 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: I am saying what I said. The M-16 in use by the US military is an assault rifle and is not capable of fully automatic fire.

Depends on how you define fully automatic fire. Nevertheless, the M-16, in all of its versions, fully automatic or 3 round burst, is regulated as a machine gun under U.S. law, and as such have been heavily regulated since the invention of the weapon (since that type of gun was invented decades after machine guns became heavily regulated in 1934).

And, because the A2 and A3 (I believe) models have a selector for semiautomatic and burst fire (more than one shot at a time), all M-16s are also legally classed as "Assault Rifles", which the semiautomatic AR-15 types are not, except by those who are trying to confuse the public about the differences between semiautomatic and burst/full-automatic versions of the gun.; 12/21/12, 8:24 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Above, I pointed out some of the reasons why AR type semiautomatic rifles are the most popular rifle these days, constituting almost half the rifles sold last year. Some more information to explain this can be found in: The Truth About the AR-15 Rifle. I had mentioned all the accessories that could be added and replaced, but the gun design itself is highly modular, allowing one to switch out calibers, adjust for size, and a number of other things in order to fit a gun to a shooter and an application.

In other words, the AR type guns are the first extremely popular modern semiautomatic rifles available to the general public. Accurate, light weight, rugged, and highly modular. The M-1 Garand type paradigm that the gun grabbers seem to want to perpetuate is attempting to push technology from the first half of the 20th Century onto 21st Century gun owners, and it doesn't work.; 12/21/12, 8:35 AM