Althouse: "Donald Trump said all AR-15 rifles that are sold in America should be 'made in America.' Progressives were aghast at Trump’s toxic nationalism."

May 17, 2019

"Donald Trump said all AR-15 rifles that are sold in America should be 'made in America.' Progressives were aghast at Trump’s toxic nationalism."

"I’m sorry, did I say Donald Trump? I meant Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris proposed a ban on imported AR-15 rifles. Progressives praised Harris for her bold stand against gun violence."

John jibes.

I'd make a "Kamala is like Trump" tag if I thought this was going to keep happening.

49 comments:

JAORE said...: How about a Kamala is like Bozo tag?

The more I read about her, the more I am aghast she has reached the heights she has in politics.; 5/17/19, 11:17 AM
madAsHell said...: She's got that kind of smug that attempts to mask her ignorance. It ain't working.

She's almost like Hillary, but without all the Chardonnay!!; 5/17/19, 11:19 AM
J. Farmer said...: Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama all ran against "free" trade agreements, promises to renegotiate NAFTA more in line with American ideals, and to stop outsourcing and sending jobs overseas. Only when Trump adopted it did all the Establishment rags start squawking about how impossible (and evil) it was. Though, if you listened carefully, the Democrats made it known during their respective campaigns that they were basically just kidding anyway. It was just the sort of thing they had to say to appeal to populist dweebs in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania.; 5/17/19, 11:22 AM
Leland said...: Now that is funny.; 5/17/19, 11:23 AM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: Anti-gunners are constantly betraying their abject ignorance about the devices they are so sure they understand. This is just another example.; 5/17/19, 11:24 AM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: Offhand, I can’t think of of one of the gazillion versions of the AR-15 that isn’t made in America. Sure, many of it’s modular parts may be manufactured overseas but they’re overwhelmingly assembled and marketed by American companies. A classic example of Leftist ignorance inadvertently getting one right.; 5/17/19, 11:26 AM
rehajm said...: Heh. John is going to attract haters with that one...; 5/17/19, 11:26 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: JAORE said...

The more I read about her, the more I am aghast she has reached the heights she has in politics

As U2 sang, if you wanna kiss the sky, better learn how to kneel...; 5/17/19, 11:29 AM
chuck said...: the more I am aghast she has reached the heights she has in politics.

What heights? California is all about party and networking, there is nothing high about it except the chemically induced variety. Nationally, Kamala is a bust because she is boring.; 5/17/19, 11:30 AM
Achilles said...: Kamala is clearly just not very intelligent.

Most statists are not very smart.; 5/17/19, 11:37 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Actually, requiring AR-15s to be American made would probably not be that onerous. The serialized part is the lower receiver, and that is one of its simplest parts. It is just a block of (usually) metal that is machined to accept different parts bolted or attached to it. Thanks to the popularization of unserialized 80% lower receivers, you can now buy kits containing all of the rest of an AR-15, mostly assembled. And it is then a simple matter to put the pieces together. You can, of course, buy serialized and completed AR-15 lower receivers, and use either one of the kits I mentioned, or just pick your own and build an AR-15 that way. So, if you can only buy American made AR-15s, that would essentially mean companies buying serialized American made lower receivers and slapping them together with readily available kits. Prices might go up a little bit but probably not that much, since most of the parts utilized could potentially be foreign made. And trying to close that loophole is going to be hard because many parts are usable on multiple firearms and pseudo firearms. For example, you can find Chinese optics on sale for Airsoft guns that have smaller print saying that they are also usable on firearms up to a certain caliber.; 5/17/19, 11:39 AM
gilbar said...: chuck responded to...
the more I am aghast she has reached the heights she has in politics.
by asking...
What heights?

About waist high, as i understand it; 5/17/19, 11:46 AM
Bay Area Guy said...: Kammy is the Sarah Connor of the campaign.; 5/17/19, 11:49 AM
Lucid-Ideas said...: They already are for the most part, and all adjudicated 'sporting' imported must be 922r compliant as well as re-manufactured weapons being imported for that purpose.

I believe there's a conservative estimation there could be as many as 10 million AR15s in private hands.

Come on Harris. Ban them.; 5/17/19, 11:50 AM
Big Mike said...: As long as I can still get an AK-47, like the drug cartels and inner city gang bangers.; 5/17/19, 11:57 AM
Michael K said...: requiring AR-15s to be American made would probably not be that onerous.<

Remember California has a ban of some sort ion AR 15s and she probably thinks there will be "counterfeit" AR 15 lowers being imported to avoid the California ban. I doubt she could describe the rifle anyway. She is reading a script.; 5/17/19, 12:14 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: The absurdity is that they are trying to restrict possession of MSRs (Modern Sporting Rifles) like AR-15s. They are very rarely used in crime because, even with collapsible stocks, they are hard to conceal. Which is why you are much more likely to find them used defensively (since you don’t have to conceal them) than offensively. They are immensely popular, thanks to their superior ergonomics and functionality, as well as their almost complete modularity. Yet as I noted, very rarely used to commit crimes.

What problem are they trying to solve by infringing our 2nd Amdt Rights in that way? They look scary? They are typically not high powered firearms, but rather much less powerful than the main battle rifles used by the US military up through Korea (and typically used for hunting deer and larger).

The problem for gun grabbers is that MSRs, and in particular, AR-15s are going to be very hard to ban thanks to the 2nd Amdt. They are now in common usage, thanks to the inability to reinstate the Clinton AWB. There are now millions in civilian hands, and the numbers increase significantly each year. That, alone, should make their availability safe from gun grabbers, under Heller. But the 2nd Amdt also has a militia clause. The AR-15 is the greatly preferred militia weapon, over any other, since the M16 and M4 carbine, that have been the main battle rifles and carbines that our military has used for 60 years now, were derived from the Armalite AR-15. By now, tens of millions of current and former military have been taught their riflery using the same manual of arms. The big difference? The civilian AR-15 giggle switch (fire selector) doesn’t go to full auto rock and roll. Which gets to Miller, a 1930s era Supreme Court decision which said that the govt could ban firearms not in use by the military. That implies that they cannot ban firearms in common use by the military, and, in particular, the semiautomatic version of our military’s main battle rifles (and carbines) for the last 60 years.; 5/17/19, 12:16 PM
buwaya said...: 10 million is very conservative.; 5/17/19, 12:17 PM
Michael K said...: A little more on the ban.; 5/17/19, 12:17 PM
mockturtle said...: "Gun violence". Considering how many people die in automobile crashes, you'd think we'd hear more about "vehicle violence", wouldn't you?; 5/17/19, 12:18 PM
mockturtle said...: Yeah, if Kamala Harris won the White House, she'd bring California with her. Not good. But fortunately, it's unlikely.; 5/17/19, 12:24 PM
walter said...: MAGA:Bravo Company in Hartland WI; 5/17/19, 12:24 PM
buwaya said...: The reason these weapons are controversial is because they are easy to make controversial.
The phenomenon of mass shootings creates mass media events. These are easily exploited politically, more so than the common daily detail of criminal shootings.

On the other hand, these weapons are peculiarly suitable for mass shootings, for killing or wounding a large number of people quickly, at short range.

They are much more lethal per shot than pistol-caliber weapons, are much easier to shoot adequately than full-power rifles, the circumstances do not require long range performance or penetration of cover, and they come with large capacity magazines. For this one terrible purpose they fit in a “sweet spot” where they can, within the same window of time, in most cases generate more casualties than the other common firearms alternatives. The only thing worse, given an unprotected crowd of people, would be belt-fed machine guns.; 5/17/19, 12:29 PM
gilbar said...: The only thing worse, given an unprotected crowd of people, would be belt-fed machine guns.

Well, or cluster munitions (OR, something like a B-41 ?); 5/17/19, 12:40 PM
bagoh20 said...: I'm proud owner of a Colt AR-15 in 5.56mm - top of the line. The perfect rifle.; 5/17/19, 12:43 PM
bagoh20 said...: "The only thing worse, given an unprotected crowd of people, would be belt-fed machine guns."

a drone with anthrax
a large truck with or without explosives.
a bomb
or the worst of all: a MAGA hat.

All require less funds and paperwork, and except for the hat, all are less risk and allow a possible safe escape and anonymity.

Seriously, if you want to just kill a lot of people, it does not require much money or risk. Doing it by hand with a firearm is one of the stupidest ways, especially where the 2nd amendment is respected.; 5/17/19, 12:51 PM
Michael K said...: They are much more lethal per shot than pistol-caliber weapons,

Probably not. The calibre and cartridge size are both smaller than most other rifles. The pistol cartridge of the Colt 1911 .45 probably knocks down at close range better than the AR 15 5.56 Nato round. The marksmanship of the Army changed in the 1960s with jungle warfare. They stopped using fixed targets at 100 yard and up to 500 yards ranges as combat was going to be short range. Also the 5.56 calibre NATO round was much lighter.; 5/17/19, 12:52 PM
buwaya said...: Ok, the next thing worse, in the category of possibly-accessible legal firearms.
One CAN legally purchase belt-fed machineguns in the US, with enough money and the filing of the proper paperwork. But even if one can obtain one of these they present inconveniences for perpetrating the sort of massacre this sort of person is usually after.

Bombs, whether homemade or manufactured, are illegal in any case.; 5/17/19, 12:58 PM
walter said...: Truck Violence!; 5/17/19, 1:14 PM
buwaya said...: The argument usually made in the case of 5.56 or 7.62x39 cartridges used in automatic rifles is that their much higher velocity causes greater tissue damage especially at short range than pistol calibers. They hit with greater energy and release a greater amount of energy, at least sometimes. Other times they seem to pass through. I suppose it depends on what they hit.

There are plenty of videos on Youtube making variations of this case using ballistic gel tests, etc.

I agree that this is a complicated question with many variables, but still it seems reasonable that they can do a lot more damage.; 5/17/19, 1:26 PM
Michael K said...: I have no argument about 7.62 calibre but 5.56,mm is much lower energy although high velocity.

You almost never see gunshot wounds from rifles unless you are in the military in a war zone. I have seen hundreds, almost all from pistols.

Even in war zones these days, there are probably more wounds from IEDs

Comparison.

The bigger cartridge is much more powerful, delivering nearly more than 1,000 foot pounds of muzzle energy than the smaller one.

Hard to find an unbiased comparison of the .45 pistol vs 5.56 mm rifle round.. Obviously at short range; 5/17/19, 1:54 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: “They are much more lethal per shot than pistol-caliber weapons, are much easier to shoot adequately than full-power rifles, the circumstances do not require long range performance or penetration of cover, and they come with large capacity magazines. For this one terrible purpose they fit in a “sweet spot” where they can, within the same window of time, in most cases generate more casualties than the other common firearms alternatives. The only thing worse, given an unprotected crowd of people, would be belt-fed machine guns.”

“They are much more lethal per shot than pistol-caliber weapons, are much easier to shoot adequately than full-power rifles, the circumstances do not require long range performance or penetration of cover, and they come with large capacity magazines. For this one terrible purpose they fit in a “sweet spot” where they can, within the same window of time, in most cases generate more casualties than the other common firearms alternatives. The only thing worse, given an unprotected crowd of people, would be belt-fed machine guns. ”

I think that you are wrong there. For the most part, AR-15 wounds tend to be through and through, with a tiny projectile, and therefore small wound channel. One big difference is that much, if not most, .223/5.56 ammunition is ball (FMJ) ammunition, as contrasted with the hollow point, mushrooming type, typically utilized for self defense with most handguns.

You don’t need the additional long distance accuracy provided by an AR-15 over a handgun in most mass shooting scenarios (the exception having been the Las Vegas shooting). At typical mass shooting distances, a handgun is almost as accurate, is harder to take away from you (or at least divert shots), and typically is shooting JHP instead of ball ammunition. I would suggest that maybe the biggest advantage that an AR-15=might have is the easy availability of 30 round magazines, as contrasted with the standard 15-17 in most full sized semiautomatic handguns these days (with the obvious exception of those with single stack magazines, such as 1911s).

Still, there just aren’t that many people dying every year in what are typically considered mass shootings.; 5/17/19, 2:05 PM
BUMBLE BEE said...: As I recall, one of the Parkland students, the first to see the shooter, and report to the school monitor who did nothing, said he saw the kid "uncase" the weapon. Prager had an author on this week who cited heavy cannabis usage was prevalent among school shooters.

Berenson – Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence

Talk about censored/ignored books!; 5/17/19, 2:20 PM
Rusty said...: Michael K said...
requiring AR-15s to be American made would probably not be that onerous.<

"Remember California has a ban of some sort ion AR 15s and she probably thinks there will be "counterfeit" AR 15 lowers being imported to avoid the California ban. I doubt she could describe the rifle anyway. She is reading a script."
The raw forgings. Yes the quality AR15s/M4s use aluminum forgings. Are fairly easy to machine with just a drill press and some files. There are plenty of instructions on the internet. OT I once machined a FAL lower from a set of drawings of dubious lineage and an existing lower. I made my own cutters and fixtures. The hardest part was timing the barrel threads. I just did it to see if it could be done.; 5/17/19, 2:21 PM
BUMBLE BEE said...: Stopping Power vs. Lethality is the debate. I bought a military manual, (comic book!), for my C.A.R. that suggested the military range officer place the butt stock against his nads and firing a round to demonstrate the low recoil of the M16. More comfortable to shoot for the nimrod recruits! As Michael K said, my combat vet friends reported 25 yard firefights commonplace in the jungle.; 5/17/19, 2:30 PM
elkh1 said...: Trump puts a 100% tariff on AR-15 from China and subsidizes domestic production with the proceeds.; 5/17/19, 2:36 PM
Lucien said...: IIRC the most current statistics on homicide by firearms shows about 3% by rifles. About the same as the proportion of black homicide victims killed by cops. But in both cases, guess what the press loves to report, and politicians love to bloviate about?; 5/17/19, 2:54 PM
Known Unknown said...: "As U2 sang, if you wanna kiss the sky, better learn how to kneel..."

I'm sorry but that's "if you wanna kiss this guy, better learn how to kneel"; 5/17/19, 2:59 PM
richard mcenroe said...: AR-15s ARE made in America. As far as I know, most of the heathen wog foreign countries that make them manufacture in the US; H&K and SIG, for instance.; 5/17/19, 4:11 PM
richard mcenroe said...: Jaore... Have you never seen "I, Claudius?"; 5/17/19, 4:12 PM
Sheridan said...: Buwaya - The lethality of the AR-15 weapons platform is a feature for me and not a bug. If I ever need the weapon for my family's safety, it is at hand. Sure beats harsh words and hand gestures. BTW, doesn't Spain have severe restrictions on firearms ownership? I remember that you once mused about restoring the Bourbon monarchy. Would they give you the ability to defend your loved ones? If not, get a speed dialer to the gendarmes and remember the old saying: "when seconds count...".; 5/17/19, 5:22 PM
buwaya said...: "BTW, doesn't Spain have severe restrictions on firearms ownership?"

Indeed. Spain has had Europe's most severe restrictions on firearms ownership, possibly, since the sixteenth century. Certainly the most severe in western Europe.

Conversely Spain has had an exceedingly low crime rate since the mid-19th century. Again one of the lowest in Europe.; 5/17/19, 5:38 PM
Achilles said...: bagoh20 said...
I'm proud owner of a Colt AR-15 in 5.56mm - top of the line. The perfect rifle.

It was good for it's time. I need to get a couple just for general use.

But there are some really cool new guns coming out.

I have the 7.62 version in black over tan.

I want one of these too.; 5/17/19, 5:50 PM
buwaya said...: To clarify -

Spain has had comprehensive civilian firearms ownership restrictions since the sixteenth century. And in various locations much earlier than that. I may be wrong about this, but I believe its the case that its had such "national" laws on the books before anywhere else in Europe.

Is this a good or bad thing? I don't know. Spain has had more than its share of revolts and civil wars regardless, over the last four centuries. Spaniards are not submissive to authority. Their mode of revolt, unless thwarted, is to subvert or ignore those laws they feel should be ignored.

The alternative can get bloody.

Calzame las alpargatas

"...For I am going to kill more liberals than there are flowers in April and May..."

A Carlist song from the Second Carlist war(or Third, there is some dispute on that point, about what sort of conflict rates being called a war), 1872-76. That one in which the boy Miguel Unamuno had that formative experience of being besieged and bombarded in Bilbao, by the Carlists. A bloody war that's been almost completely forgotten. As was the previous war, and the one before that.

I suspect all of this is more culturally determined than otherwise, that culture is expressed in laws, not laws in culture. Americans have their ways, in their laws, and others likewise.; 5/17/19, 5:56 PM
Achilles said...: buwaya said...
The reason these weapons are controversial is because they are easy to make controversial.
The phenomenon of mass shootings creates mass media events. These are easily exploited politically, more so than the common daily detail of criminal shootings.

On the other hand, these weapons are peculiarly suitable for mass shootings, for killing or wounding a large number of people quickly, at short range.

They are much more lethal per shot than pistol-caliber weapons, are much easier to shoot adequately than full-power rifles, the circumstances do not require long range performance or penetration of cover, and they come with large capacity magazines. For this one terrible purpose they fit in a “sweet spot” where they can, within the same window of time, in most cases generate more casualties than the other common firearms alternatives. The only thing worse, given an unprotected crowd of people, would be belt-fed machine guns.

Almost all gun violence is done with pistols. This is all obvious propaganda as you mention.

Not a single one of these "mass shootings" would be stopped with any of the laws being proposed.

The only reason to pass these laws is to disarm the political opponents of the left.

If you gave these attackers a full auto version of an AR-15 or a belt fed machine gun they would almost invariably kill fewer people in auto mode than with semi-auto mode. You don't just go shoot full auto.

There are specific cases for the use of full auto. Even with the option we almost never used full auto mode and if we did it was in short 3-8 shot bursts. Machine guns don't work like cutting lasers.; 5/17/19, 6:02 PM
buwaya said...: To be clear, personally I like guns.
My dad had guns, and he taught me to shoot.
I shot in competition in the Philippines.
We played with guns over there, sometimes doing imprudent things.

Like duck hunting on a motorized outrigger canoe. One balanced at the very prow, with a shotgun, while charging into fields of water lilies, trying not to fall off the boat, as it flushed flocks of ducks from under the lilypads.

I taught the boys at least the basics of firearms handling and to shoot pistols (rental guns at local ranges).

I would love to mess with guns, but its one hobby too far. I would also love to mess with model aircraft and drones, put a CNC machining center in the basement, and who knows what else. One must put a line under ones indulgences, all the sorts of things an undisciplined mind can be diverted into.; 5/17/19, 6:08 PM
buwaya said...: "The only reason to pass these laws is to disarm the political opponents of the left. "

Somebody somewhere should wargame (as a thought-experiment in a colloquium for this purpose) scenarios for an American Civil War, or the possible range of social unrest that is becoming a possibility. I suspect that an opinion will emerge that the primary weapon systems for the new revolutionaries in the Maoist first phase of insurgency will not be the rifle, but the concealable pistol and the bomb. This will be, for the most part, a war of assassinations after all. Phase Two is another story, but to arm for this phase so long beforehand is jumping the gun, as it were.; 5/17/19, 6:17 PM
Michael K said...: Somebody somewhere should wargame (as a thought-experiment in a colloquium for this purpose) scenarios for an American Civil War,

I recommend Kurt Schlicter's novels.

"People's Republic,"

and "Indian Country"

and "Wildfire.

The first was written when he assumed Hillary would win the election.

A bit violent but he lives in west LA so he has the terminology of the left down very well.; 5/17/19, 7:35 PM
rcocean said...: I wonder why the center-right doesn't talk like the Left. We should start using the Label "Toxic XYZ" - its very handy. Its like the word "Whine". Whenever the Liberal-Left complains - just tell the shut up and quit whining about Trump.; 5/17/19, 7:35 PM