Home

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 11 March 2018

I heard that from a probably well-intentioned liberal woman today.

I'm sure she believes it.

The problem is, it's utterly untrue.

She probably means the AR-15, "popularly" used in a couple of high profile shootings, and falsely claimed for several others where the gun was "close enough" to an AR-15.

The AR-15 went on civilian sale in 1963. That's 55 years ago.  When did it suddenly become a problem?

The AR-15 is based on the AR-10. That came out in 1955.

There are literally hundreds of rifles (yes, that get used for hunting) derived from those designs.

The AK-47 predates both, to 1947.

The first semiauto rifle dates from 1885.

They all function in variations of the same mechanical process.

So you really can't ban "one."

~~~

Part 2:
In 1934, the National Firearm Act required certain weapons--machine guns, short barreled weapons, "silencers"(which aren't actually a weapon), and "destructive devices" to be registered, taxed insanely and accompanied by papers everywhere.

In 1986, the "Firearm Owners Protection Act" banned new machine guns.  Yes, you read that right.  That's like having a "Car Drivers Protection Act" that bans sports cars.

So, there are already banned guns.

Moving back, I'm particularly enamored of the Soviet SVT-38 rifle, from 80 years ago. Were your parents even alive then?

Now, if I lived in Canada, I could just buy one.  Yes, in Canada. With all its "reasonable gun control."  I could buy one.

In the US, I can only buy those that came into the country before a certain date. New importation is banned.

I can list hundreds of guns I can't get in the US that civilians in other countries can get.

~~~
So, even if you're being honest, you can't ban "one."  And the claim fails because hundreds of guns have already been banned.

And given that precedent, there is no reason for me to believe that if I just agree to letting you ban one more that somehow all our problems will be solved. In fact, every time something is banned, your side comes back and insists we have to ban yet something else to fix a "loophole."

We've "only banned one gun" a thousand times, and you and I seem to agree that it hasn't worked.

~~~
Now, let's do a comparison:

Let's say we banned ownership of Corvettes to "cut down on drunk driving deaths," because "no one needs a car that does three times the speed limit."

And then there was a drunk driving death with a Ferrari, so we ban those, too.

And then the Dodge Viper.

And then the Lamborghinis.

Meanwhile, up in Chicago, hundreds of people die in drunk driving accidents every day, but those are black people, and they get killed in Toyota Camrys, Chevy Impalas and old Ford Tauruses, which are "normal" cars.

Then tomorrow there's a high profile crash with a Lotus.

And you say, "We need to ban Lotuses to save lives.  It's only one car."

Would you really be surprised when I first stare at you, then tell you to grow up and learn something about the subject before you start opining?

It's not the cars.

It's not the guns.

~~~

Next I heard, "All we want is age limits and background checks. It's 'common sense.'"
Really?

Per Federal law, you have to be 18 to buy a rifle or shotgun. That is an age limit. It's the same age limit as for marriage, legal contracting, military service, employment and several other things.

Outrageously, while 18 year olds can carry pistols in the military and in police service, they have to be 21 to buy their own. But, as outrageous and immoral as that is, it's an age limit.

When one does buy a gun from a dealer, even at a gun show, one must fill out a BATFE Form 4473. Then, a phone call is made to the FBI to verify if this person, at this address, with this Social Security Number, is eligible.

That's a background check.

Now, if you're admitting you don't think the age limits are doing anything, I agree with you.

And if you don't think the background checks are working, I agree with you.

But my solution isn't, "Keep trying the same thing but harder, until it works." That's like drinking until you're sober, or smashing your hand with a hammer until it stops hurting. When I see something isn't working, I STOP DOING IT.

And this is why we can't have a discussion on the subject.  You're so ignorant of the matter you're not even wrong.
~~~

Did you see any of the debate around the recent "cut up your AR-15" fad?

To summarize:  There is a specific, legal way to destroy an AR-15. There is a specific, legal way to destroy an AK-47.  In fact, every firearm out there has a specific, ATF-approved way of destroying it.  The people who just chopped them in the middle:

FIRST, did not actually render the weapon inoperable. And if you don't know enough about guns to do that, then I'm probably glad you got rid of yours, though possibly selling it to someone more competent would be a better choice.

SECOND, they committed a felony by chopping the barrels short, per the National Firearms Act of 1934.  "Intent" does not matter.  Creating the felonious weapon is a crime.  If you then make a few more cuts, or hand it to the police, you have not destroyed the weapon in the approved manner, and that is a SECOND felony.

Do you grasp that? The gun control laws we already have make it illegal to even destroy your own gun in the wrong way.

Does it sound like more laws will make things any better?
~~~
Please. Do some research. It will require going to "gun nut" sites and the ATF's website, to find sources that actually understand the subject. And even on the "gun nut" sites, there will be errors, because the law is THAT complicated, incoherent, contradictory, outdated, obscure and specific all at the same time that compliance is a minefield even for people who want to comply and learn about it.

The danger you face is that by learning about the subject, you may come to agree that most of these laws serve zero purpose and only make matters worse.

Either way, once you have an idea what laws are out there, we can have that "Discussion" you want, rather than you demanding we do things that are already the law, or have already failed, or both.

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 08 March 2018

It's actually the best thing they can do for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. (Well, other than support the Constitution, but we all know liberals are incapable of that.)

By doing so they demonstrate:

That they don't know enough about firearms to render one inoperable.  They keep chopping the middle of the barrel, leaving the receiver, bolt assembly and fire control mechanism intact, so it still shoots bullets. And no, I'm not "Gunsplaining" (per some gamma cuck who apparently got into the Marines).  I'm EDUCATING you. Because if you have no fucking clue how a firearm works, then your opinion on the matter is on par with a "Car safety" activist who doesn't know the difference between an engine and a transaxle.

AND in the process, creating an illegal sawed off rifle.  Which shows that:

They aren't even aware of the National Firearm Act of 1934--one of the oldest federal firearm laws, and most important (per their arguments). And if you have no fucking clue what laws are already on the books, then you should learn that before you start publicly masturbating for more.

That they believe "intent" matters for the NFA. Now, I'd actually like to see them accomplish this--it would reduce the power of that complete Fascist regulation. But if they aren't aware they're actually making points for our side, they should continue doing so. Thanks, fucktards.

That the NFA is obviously irrelevant, because even you, gun hater, thought it was perfectly okay to violate it and are defensive about doing so. "I didn't MEAN to be a criminal!" Yeah, you know how many innocent people have been trapped with that crap? Who never harmed anyone?

That telling the police they're going to break the law makes it okay--sort of like if they started a meth lab, but informed the police first. It just proves that the NFA is a complete pile of shit. Did I already say that? Well, it should be said again.

And that they believe they're too unstable to be trusted with a gun. "This gun will never harm anyone!" Neither will any of mine.  In my case, it's because I'm stable. If you're afraid yours will hurt someone, it means you believe the operator--yourself--is the problem.  So at least you got that part right. I'm actually totally cool with a ban on liberals having access to dangerous weapons, like firearms and ballots.

And if ATF doesn't follow up, then they've helped weaken the NFA. Thanks. That's actually a good thing. Every video of someone violating the NFA and not getting punished is an affirmative defense down the road. Of course, sawing off, rather than milling or turning a short barrel, is usually a criminal trick. So you've helped all their legal defenses, but then, no one ever claimed you were smart.  I know, I'm "gunsplaining" again.

If the BATFEces do follow up, the chopper is going to jail. Also a good thing.

So yes, let's encourage more Democrats to chop up their weapons, making normal people safer, and nibbling away at their previous bullshit law, which is such bullshit they instinctively recognize it's pointless, but want to pass something else.

You know what they say about people who keep repeating the same actions, expecting different results?

They're insane, and therefore shouldn't have access to firearms.

PS: Oh, yeah, and every one they cut up will be replaced within minutes by the quiet professionals of our firearm industry.

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 04 March 2018

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 02 March 2018

It's almost always civilians who say this based on their non-experience in the military.

First of all, it would terrify me to believe that there was nothing I could do to stop an invader or rogue government. But apparently, they fear me more than it, while believing I'm impotent to do anything about it.

I would suggest anyone with this combination of neuroses seek mental health help.

But moving on.

To believe that lightly armed forces can't defeat a government one has to believe that the Vietnamese lost and the Iraqis didn't tie up the US Army for a decade.

Let's start with the concept of an invader.

Said invader is likely at the long end of a supply chain. (Canada is not a likely invader, nor Mexico.)

Now, even if we accept the claim that very light infantry can't do anything effective...it can be a screening force for the military members who can. Every veteran or trained hunter with a rifle acting as support, perimeter security, reconnaissance and facility guard is one more active duty troop freed up to engage.

And they are far more effective if they have commonality of ammo, magazines and parts with the regular forces. AR-15s don't have quite the same internals as M-16s, but the pins, springs and accessories are interchangeable, as are ammunition and magazines. Suddenly, the US Army has a potential 30 MILLION more basic Riflemen.

But the claim they can't do anything effective (beyond what we've shown) is false.

Rifle fire is just fine for harassment of troops in garrison, ongoing casualty infliction among support elements, and more importantly, their administration.

An invader, once amongst the populace, has limited options. If his goal is simply to destroy the nation, then there's no reason to waste time within anything below strategic weapons. But what point does that serve?  And if that happens, with no subsequent invasion, then the utter chaos, collapse and starvation that will follow dictates that being heavily armed is among the top survival priorities.

If his goal is to transform the nation, he must have offices, bureaucrats, support personnel. Almost none of those will be military, nor armored, nor armed. They will have to drive or walk the streets, and they can be assassinated easily with rifles.  Rifles being better than pistols, because even a 100 meter head start greatly increases survivability. Semiautos being better than manual actions, because an area can be saturated so that even if the target dodges, he is more likely to be hit.

Keep in mind that a few dozen active PIRA/IRA shooters and bombers kept entire British regiments tied up for decades. A lone rogue cop kept four departments in the LA area tied up for a week. Two bombers in Boston crashed the economy and stopped the city for three days.

Can the invader secure a port on the coast, with air support and materiel ships and a garrison?  Possibly.  Can he move inland with patrols? Yes, while taking horrific casualties.  Can he roll convoys in and establish inland garrisons? Not without great difficulty, coming back around to that "you destroyed what you were trying to claim" problem.

What about his tanks and planes?  

What about them?  First they have to get here, then they have to have a secure facility. Modern planes are very susceptible to damage. Rifle fire can destroy engines, airframe integrity, avionics. It can kill all the necessary support personnel--up to 100 per craft.  This means the aircraft must be outside of rifle range of the perimeter, or protected by a revetment constructed by engineers. Those engineers and security are susceptible to rifle fire, while any remaining operational military elements bring mortars or drones into play.

As far as tanks...they have to have a place to laager every few hours, and the tankers have to get out.  Then they're as susceptible to attack as any other troop.  And that laager will need security and a perimeter. This gets insanely expensive very fast, as many liberals have noted with the operation in Iraq..which they insist the US lost.

No other nation has that ability to project force.

And even if they do, they rapidly lose any possibility of "winning hearts and minds" and are back to the problem of having to destroy the nation, its population and its resources and infrastructure, in order to conquer it.

The arithmetic is simple:  Even if a nation the size of China could mobilize all 5 million troops into the US, the 100 million armed American households, with potentially 2.5 rebels each, means it's possible for the US to soak up casualties 50:1. Even if major population centers were nuked first, we could manage 20:1, and we'd pick the softest targets first.

Then, when our partisans do eliminate a tank element, or ground unit, its weapons then become ours, and we're no longer "fighting tanks with rifles." Because we have diesel mechanics, electronic experts, and rifles.  Will they be as effective as a professional force? No.  But they'll be effective enough to tie up yet ANOTHER armor unit trying to stop them, which will pin that unit in place for even more harassment and attack.

It is simply ridiculous to claim an invasion is realistically possible.

Now, this doesn't mean we don't need those rifles.

Let's move to a repressive government in the US.

This is not likely to be a fast process.  However, we've seen increasing asset forfeiture, denial of due process, corruption, violation of rights.  If it continues unchecked, it's possible to conceive of a point where the average American will decide enough is enough.

And part of such process is making it harder for the population to resist. Which includes gun control.

One of Diane Feinstein's arguments for her desired ban on .50 caliber rifles was that they could be used to attack armored cars the police use.

So the question becomes, for what purpose do the police need to send an armored car to my house?

And for what purpose might an even less facilitating government do so?

And if the first argument is armored cars, then what about body armor?

Quickly, the safety of government agents becomes more important than that of the citizens it is supposed to serve.

Well, such a government is not going to send any fighter planes. First, they'd have to find a pilot willing to bomb US civilians, and if they can find that, you better get every weapon you can into the hands of every person you can.  Because that means they're willing to blow up your house and damage or destroy your neighbor's house in the process to get you. What kind of crime could you possibly have done to merit that?

As far as tanks, those require a tank hauler to deliver them to the location.  If they're sending that down the road to an American citizen's house, for any reason whatsoever, it better have an armed convoy, because I guarantee, I don't care what crime you may have committed, that is far beyond a reasonable response and I'm going to try to stop that convoy with roadblocks, caltrops, rifle fire, and whatever else. It's very likely that after you, it's going to be me anyway, so I may as well get the party started. And I won't be the only one.

Seriously, what world do you live in where you believe the government could or should use that kind of force, and you're not offering to pre-register with the resistance? Do you hate any of your fellow men that much?  Do you not see a problem?  Or do you in fact endorse that kind of despotic force? Because the way some of you toss it out there makes me wonder.

Do you see my problem?

And if it comes to that, we'd be back to the position where it's time to shoot every bureaucrat, every manager, every secretary of that kind of government.

But that's actually the second part of the problem.

Here's the first part:

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.

The Congress shall have power ...
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

Read that again, if you haven't read it before.  Congress has the power to license WARSHIPS that are not part of the US Navy.

This means privately owned warships, WITH CANNON were common enough in 1789 that it was worth writing a rule for their usage.

Quite a few artillery units through the US Civil War were privately owned.

Now, warships are pretty expensive these days...but old torpedo boats can be had for $50,000, and people do own tanks and aircraft with disabled weapons, as well as artillery pieces.

And my question is, why do they have to be disabled?

Well, that comes down to the National Firearms Act of 1934, declaring that such things had to be licensed, both the weapon, and every individual shell, at $200 each.

Then in 1968 there were a few more restrictions.

Then in 1986, the so-called "Firearm Owners' Protection Act," which does nothing of the sort, made it illegal to manufacture new machine guns for civilians, even with the tax and license.

So your argument is, "We've already violated this amendment to the point where all you have are very basic infantry weapons, and now we're claiming those aren't effective without the stuff we've already banned, so it's reasonable to ban that, too."

And I'm saying, we need to fix the entire problem, which we both recognize, and eliminate those laws so veterans (and determined civilians who for whatever reason were unable to serve), can have the weapons they need so we CAN fight tanks and planes in such an emergency.

The only people who could possibly object are the kind who want to send tanks and planes against civilians.