12 Buzzwords Liberals Use To Scare You Into Agreeing With Gun Control

“He who controls the language controls the masses.” I hate quoting such a leftist like Saul Alinsky, but the man has a point here. Liberals, unlike people of reason, seem to delight in their ignorance of what the terms tossed around in the gun control debates actually mean, or at least they don’t care at all. This week’s article will list some popular gun control buzzwords, what they actually mean, and what they don’t.

A list of leftist gun buzzwords


The AR-15 is a rifle of some controversy on the national scene due to its reputation on the left as a scary, black killing machine, and on the right as a proven, affordable, ergonomically friendly rifle used as home protection by millions of Americans.

What it really is: The AR-15 is a trademark registered to Colt Firearms. Originally developed by the Armalite division of the Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation, the Armalite Rifle Design 15 was a select fire prototype rifle that led to the design of the military M-16. Colt, who received the government contract to make the M-16, holds the license to use the AR-15 model name for their civilian rifles. All other “AR-15” style rifles made by other companies are technically “clones” and not actual AR-15s, but the name is used in contemporary slang to mean AR-15 style rifle made by any manufacturer. They are ALL semi-automatic only.

What it is not: It is not “Automatic Rifle 15”, nor is it “Assault Rifle 15,” nor “15 rounds a second.”

Fully Automatic

This term is tossed around to imply that a rifle or pistol is a bullet spraying killing machine that all you have to do is hold down the trigger and people die.

What it really is: Fully automatic rifles, per se, are actually not made anymore. A fully automatic rifle will discharge a round, eject the old one, chamber a new one, and then fire it and repeat the cycle until you either run out of ammo, release the trigger, or melt the barrel. Many old machine guns and sub-machine guns were fully automatic. Now, most rifles with a fully automatic option are correctly called “select fire,” which means they have fully automatic and semi-automatic firing modes.

Fully automatic weapons are illegal to manufacture for civilian use. Any fully automatic rifle or sub-machine gun in civilian hands must have been registered prior to the 1989 ban, and requires an extensive background check and special stamp. They are also prohibitively expensive for most Americans to own.

What it is not: No AR-15 is fully automatic. No civilian owned legal gun, other than those mentioned above, is fully automatic. Any gun used in a mass shooting, 99 times out of 100, in the US, is not fully automatic. The only possible exception is foreign guns smuggled in, or stolen military guns, both of which are damn hard to get.

M-16s have a position for automatic fire; AR-15s don’t. It’s that simple.


This term is highly misunderstood by the left. A synonym is “auto-loading.”

What it really is: Semi-automatics, or autoloaders, will fire a round, eject it, and chamber a new round with one press of the trigger. The trigger must then be released far enough to reset the sear, then can be pressed again for another shot.

What it is not: Semi-automatics are not fully automatic. It is very hard, outside of a machine shop, to modify a semi-automatic into a fully automatic, and it’s almost easier to make a new gun from scratch than attempt it. This is done on purpose to prevent conversions by people with normal skills. All civilian rifles, with a very rare grandfathered exception outlined above, are semi automatic.

Assault Rifle

“Assault Rifle” is a term used to describe a specific category of military firearm.

What it really is: Assault rifles are lightweight rifles that fire intermediate cartridges like the .223/5.56×45 and the 7.62×39 and have select fire operation. The most common used today are the M-16/M-4 and the AK-47/AK-74 families of rifles. They are used by militaries worldwide.

AK-47. That big handle above the trigger is the safety. See the two dimples in its downward path; those are full auto, and semi auto, respectively, because it’s an Assault Rifle, and has full auto.

What it is not: AR-15s, and other civilian-legal semi-automatic rifles are NOT assault rifles, because they lack the select-fire capability of assault rifles. While they may LOOK similar, due to use of modern materials, ergonomic features, and similar goals of design, they are legally nowhere near the same thing.

Assault Weapon

“Assault Weapon” is a term coined by liberals when they tried to call a semi-automatic rifle an Assault Rifle and got called on their bullshit.

What it really is: This term has no meaning. It’s a liberal inspired piece of mental masturbation that tries to push the point that a gun is somehow scarier if it has military inspired accessories on it and is black. It’s a con game run by the left to make you believe that they only want to ban SOME guns, and not all the other ones that behave and shoot exactly the same, but aren’t black.

What it is not: Non-applicable.

Sniper Rifle

This one hasn’t been seen lately, not since the DC sniper.

What it really is: A magnum caliber bolt action or semi-automatic rifle with a scope and a good trigger capable of making long range shots. Most deer rifles can be called sniper rifles, which is why the liberals usually back way off on this one since it tends to mobilize the Elmer Fudd Army, the reserve troops of the NRA, who don’t care about everyone losing their AR-15s, but will bring the heat if you go after their Remington.

What it really isn’t: Any small-bore rifle of a wimpy cartridge, like a .22. The .223/5.56×45 round, despite the reputation it has amongst the left, is actually a fairly wimpy round that is severely running out of steam at 500 yards range.

High Capacity Magazine

This term was coined by the left for any magazine that holds more cartridges than they think it should (i.e. zero.)

What it really is: A true hi-cap mag is one that holds more ammo than the gun was designed to hold in one mag. Usually, these things are aftermarket, cumbersome, and heavy. For AR-15’s, the true hi-cap magazines are drum mags, and coffin mags that hold upwards of 50 rounds a piece. I don’t recommend the real high-caps for anything other than range toys; the Magpul Pmag-40 is about as high as I’d go.

What it is not: The AR-15 and its clones typically ship with either 20 round mags, or 30 round mags. Those are NOT high-capacity, they are STANDARD capacity, as they are what the manufacturer recommends. It doesn’t matter what the limp-wristed, leftist reporters who want only single shots to be legal, but they try to own the language to own the debate anyway. Fun fact: the guy that shot Gabby Giffords was using hi-cap Glock mags, and got stopped because he dropped the one he was going to load.

Collapsible Stocks and Pistol Grips

Select Fire makes a difference on a gun’s deadliness, and it could be argued that magazine capacity does, too, but the following are some ergonomic improvements that the left thinks makes guns more deadly because they look scary and are black.

What they really are: A collapsible stock can be adjusted to multiple positions shorter than fully extended to suit shooters of lesser stature (little girls) and allow for easier entry and exit of vehicles while carrying the rifle. They also store easier in cases and safes.

Pistol grips are ergonomic enhancements that make your hand sit at a more natural angle, allowing for a better grip on and control of the weapon. They will poke you in the back when you sling it over a shoulder, though.

What they are not: A collapsible stock is not a magical device that makes the gun either 50% smaller or invisible, depending on which leftist rag you read. It will reduce the length of a rifle maybe 10%, and it’s not worth getting upset over. A pistol grip stock is not another magical device that makes the gun more deadly.

Threaded barrels, flash hiders, muzzle brakes, and suppressors

There is a big debate about end of barrel attachments. Shotguns get chokes, but a rifle doesn’t really need anything, so you can put things like flash hiders, suppressors, and various spiky things that are kind of dumb, like door breachers, on them.

What they really are: A threaded barrel has threads cut around the outside of the muzzle end so that you can screw something onto it. A flash hider is one of those devices, it deflects the outgoing fiery gas out of the immediate upward direction from the barrel so that you are not rendered night blind. A suppressor makes the rifle or pistol quieter so you do not need hearing protection to shoot them. A muzzle brake deflects combustion gas backwards and makes the gun have less felt recoil, but also makes it louder and pisses off the guy shooting next to you.

What they are not: None of these devices make the gun any more deadly; they just make them easier to control, which actually makes them safer to use.

Exploding Ammunition

This is a recent hyperbole used by the left.

What it really is: There aren’t any truly “explosive” handgun or small-bore rifle bullets out there. There are tracers, which glow with phosphorescence coating on the bullet ignited by the friction of the barrel so you can see the path of the bullet and there is incendiary ammo, which has a nose cone with some extra gunpowder in it that goes off to try to set things that can burn on fire, like clothing and tents, and there are frangible rounds that simply split apart upon impact, but, to my knowledge, exploding rounds are for things like artillery and grenades.

What it really isn’t: There simply is not enough room in a small bore bullet to pack enough explosive (like gunpowder) to do any sort of real additional damage that more bullet wouldn’t cause. I would be more scared of a wicked hollow point than an “explosive” round.

See the little extra powder up top?

Compromise and Common Sense

These terms the left use interchangeably to make their legislation more appealing:

What they really are: Considering all the guns rights that have been lost already over the past 100 years, a “compromise” to the liberals is one where you give up some of your rights, because they want to take them all, and you want to keep them all. “Common sense” is simply a lie that they use to make their oppressive legislation sound smart.

What they aren’t: These terms are buzz-words designed to slip in violations of your rights, and they are not honest discourse. The only compromise offered liberals on gun control should be “Shut up, never mention your ideas again, and I won’t shoot you for your treason.”


This military term for an area related to the arms manufacturing industry has been hijacked to sensationalize any shooting.

What it really is: An arsenal is a place where guns and/or ammunition is made, repaired, or maintained. For instance, the Lake City Ammunition Plant, which makes a lot of US military ammo, is an arsenal.

What it is not: It is not a rifle, two pistols, and 73 rounds of ammunition, like reported by a breathless bombshell with big tits on the evening news. That’s not even a good start.


Don’t use this knowledge preemptively; wait until a liberal misspeaks, gently correct them, and suggest that they become educated before talking about the topic again. They never will, so you should be able to shut them down for quite some time with points like these. Add your own in the comments below.

If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh’s book Free Speech Isn’t Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.

Read More: Gun Control Is Not The Answer To Islamic Terrorism

176 thoughts on “12 Buzzwords Liberals Use To Scare You Into Agreeing With Gun Control”

  1. Best way to scare liberals back is to read them the second amendment and show them the evidence proving that a mass shooting was a false flag in order to limit gun rights.

  2. Articles like this add to my hatred of the GOPe and Conservatism Inc. They’ve allowed the Left to form nonsense terms and use them to successfully advance policies that destroy individual rights. Sometimes I think they do this because they are stupid and other times I think they are intentionally throwing the fight. Regardless of the case, they continue to represent themselves as “defenders of individual liberty” when, in reality, they consistently fail in defending said liberty.
    And then there are the libertarians. By libertarians, I mean the “Reason Magazine” type of libertarian. This election cycle, as well as the last 8 years, is perfectly suited for libertarian counterarguments to the Leftist/ SJW statism that currently dominates both the narrative and policy but they seem AWOL in these times.

  3. Great article. Lots of my pet peeves in here. A couple of clarifications:
    1) – the AR-15 was actually offered for sale to civilians a year before (1963) it entered military service in this country (1964). So this was not a weapon designed to be used as a “killing machine” for the military. Quite the opposite. The military took a good design and modified it further into a deadly weapon that you aren’t allowed to own as a civilian.
    2) – you say that “select fire makes a difference on a guns deadliness, and it could be argued that magazine capacity does too.” This is an unnecessary concession that has not been proven up by evidence. I could just as easily argue that these features make these weapons less deadly because they discourage taking well aimed shots and conserving ammunition through good fire discipline to take well aimed shots. In other words, if you spray and pray all your ammo away without aiming, you aren’t necessarily going to kill lots of people, and will likely kill far fewer than you could have. In the Marines, we had a three round burst option on our M-16s (another misconception is that M-16s are full auto – they aren’t, and the only standard infantry weapon that is full auto other than crew served weapons is the M-249 SAW, which you also can’t obtain), but we were trained to never use it because it wasted ammunition decreasing your lethality.
    Finally, let’s talk about common sense. It’s time to argue common sense. They say background checks are common sense if they save one life. OK, then the logical counterargument is that if they take one life, they are not common sense. Suppose that little Suzie SJW is being stalked by a creepy raper guy. She wants a gun for protection, but when she goes to protect herself she finds that even though she has never done anything wrong or broken the law, she is on a no fly list and cannot obtain a weapon. That night she is raped and murdered and did not have a gun to defend herself. Was this common sense? How about if Suzie was prevented from buying a gun because her rapist murderer had called the cops on her and taken out a bullshit restraining order specifically to disarm her? Common sense? You could literally imagine infinite scenarios where these “common sense” solutions result in lives lost unnecessarily. When people want to talk about common sense, don’t be afraid of it, show them what common sense really is.

    1. Stoner was trying to sell the rifle as a lightweight survival rifle for pilots. That’s why the Air Force was his first military customer. I don’t think he ever intended it to be a front-line infantry weapon.
      Stoner’s AR-18 was much more robust and reliable (due to a clean running piston system) and would have done much better in Vietnam – but Colt owned better Senators than Armlite.

      1. True that. Or as my one of my NCOs used to say, “always remember your weapons and equipment are provided by the lowest bidder.” If we would have splurged $.08 more per pistol, the US militatry could have had Sig Sauer 226s, but went with M9 (Barettas) instead.

        1. Where did you get the $.08 figure? I remember following the competition as a kid and I remember the cost being significantly higher for the entire contract- pistols/spares/support/repairs. But memory is a fickle thing…

        2. This was going back wtih a discussion I had with another NCO at the time who was (obviously) a sig sauer fan— could have been $0.16, but I never followed up. It didn’t matter to me anyway– we were are carrying M1911s.

        3. Stupid thing was, they spent far more than that on redoing the trials due to challenges and congressmen not being happy with the results. If I recall correctly, Beretta had to commit to building a US factory to get the contract.

        4. I recall the claim that after excessive use (10k rounds) they found fisures in the frame and wanted new trials, but Beretta corrected the issue pretty quick.
          In the end, it really is about how much grease you smear into some politicians hands to get the contract. I never liked the M9 and stuck with the M1911 despite the smaller round capacity.

        5. I did like it – but is was the first auto (not a revolver) pistol I ever handled.

      1. Interesting. But semi-auto is not the same as fully-auto M-249, which is the whole purpose of the weapon. Why carry all of that extra weight for none of the suppressive firepower?

        1. Cause it super cool either way? I know in reality its no different than an AR with a drum, but its still cool AF looking.

  4. I get a laugh out of the left’s ‘military-style’ weapons. The only plus a military-issued weapon has is that it can take a beating, and the receivers can survive longer over time than most civilian materials.
    Most military weapons are semi-auto as well. An untrained person will probably end up doing more damage with a semi-auto as opposed to an automatic, particularly if they’re standing. Plus Automatics are not economic. Even if you hit your target, you’ve wasted 30+ rounds turning him to cheese.
    Only 1 thing off on here, ‘Assault Rifle’ was coined by the gun companies back in the 80s in order to sell more product.

    1. The entire 9 months I trained full-time in the Australian infantry, I never once bothered to switch off the single shot lock on my F88 Austeyr trigger. Not once. I fired it semi-automatic the entire time.
      Why? It seemed like a dumb idea to go fully-automatic – less accuracy, waste of ammo. The weapon was simply more dangerous on semi-automatic.

      1. Not even for a little fun?
        I never use FA for anything other than fucking around and MG long distance with tracers, but it does bring a smile to my lips just going full retard on the range and hip spraying targets while yelling “get sum! Moahahahahaha”.
        I should grow up I guess, but they say a childlike mind stays young…
        Just to try I did a pop up target course run on FA, and it went expectably badly. Targets out to 50m Ok, beyond not so much.
        That’s with the same rifle I get 100/100 hits out to 130m with in single shot on the same course and day.

        1. I said I was just fucking around. But at full auto my rifle behaved slightly different at first round off also. At about 70-80m I was hitting about 80% further out not at all until I aimed for the ground before the targets.
          That’s the best course I’ve done which was at Lohtaja in Finland in 2000 I think.
          I used a Finnish RK-62 modernized M92 I think it was called.
          Different springs, grip and foregrip, very accurate, I shot up to 463 meters by laser, one shot one kill on a steel plate. Without optics I should add, half man size target.

      2. I did FA with a German paratroopers G3 once and it climbed like a ladder. The only time we used FA with our M16A1s was room clearings in MOUT.

      3. We have a 3 round burst option. Utterly worthless. I’ve fired automatic carbines before with some spec-ops guys, and unless you know what you’re doing, you won’t hit anything beyond the broad side of a barn.

        1. I went back a few years ago and replayed them. Got a new appreciation for the plasma pistol on legendary. Use it to lower Elite shields, then switch to something else to finish them.

        2. I don’t know, there’s a lot to be said for JA+blood+dismemberment mod:

          (used to mod in this community back in high school).

        3. I played one round of Halo2 multiplayer waaayyy back in college where plasma pistols were the only weapons available. It was split up into 2 teams of 4 and my entire team quit, but me. I thought “fuck it, let’s do this” and proceeded to smash faces. Somehow I won that game against 4 others by a HUGE margin. Like 50 to 29 or something. One of those games where everything just clicks.

        4. I had one of those. 4v4, 50 to win. 28 kills, 7 deaths… and my team was so booty that we still lost.

        5. A great game one of my friends made was called “Step. Step. Die.” Create a KotH game on the Midship map where the hill stays in the middle bottom area. Set the game to random weapons, full grenades, and random spawn locations and bring in as many people as you can. With just 4 people, a game can last an hour. We played it open online once with 16 players max and you were doing great if you could get 2 seconds in the hill at any given time. The middle was nothing but constant explosions. So many kills and medals…

        6. I’ve always thought, if you are going to use three round burst on a small caliber like 5.56, why not just use a 7.62 on auto-load? It seems to me 20 rounds of 7.62 shot one at a time would be more effective than 30 rounds of 5.56 shot 3 at a time.

        7. …because 5.56 is gay…its barely more than a .22. A .30 caliber hole in your chest, however, is nothing to laugh at.

        8. The burst function is meant to be used in short range combat situations. The point is that you can aim less carefully — and therefore fire quicker — when firing bursts at short range. Weapons of calibre 7.62 are often longer and heavier than those of calibre 5.56, and therefore less handy in short range combat. However, at distances over a couple of hundred meters, 7.62 is much more accurate.

      4. You are almost completely correct. Full auto is good for suppressing fire due to it’s psychological impression on the enemy. Otherwise it sure as hell does waste ammunition to little effect. Oh, and its great for wacking Sonny Corleone at the causeway toll booth.

    2. Sturmgewher or whatever the German is, translates to storm rifle as in the verb to storm something. Assault is a synonym to storm. The term assault rifle was thus a German invention with the stg44 in 1944 or so.

      1. Pisses me off when gun stores sell out. It’s an atrocity, a crime against humanity!
        …because then I don’t get to range test the guns before I buy.

  5. This reminded me of a Slate article.
    The question? Why not employ journalists who know about guns to write about them? (Or have them educated on the subject at least?)
    One can’t help but laugh at either the naivete or the utter lack of critical thinking skills employed here (but then again, the writer is a woman). The simple answer is because anyone who knows about guns and had anything remotely resembling integrity or ethics wouldn’t maintain the “gun control” (read:ban) narrative and that the scare tactics involved would be completely negated, among other similar reasons.
    Odd that this article was linked to a 2012 article http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/07/aurora_shooting_how_did_people_commit_mass_murder_before_automatic_weapons_.html
    that asked whether guns were the only weapon used for mass “murders” in the 20th century and discovered that it was actually more likely to be explosives or fires, or just as likely to be blades or bludgeons as guns. The reason we are told mass “shooting” is because there have been worse mass murders, but they don’t fit the anti-2nd amendment agenda.
    Truth is, they don’t care what the truth is, so long as they can take away freedoms and substitute control. It’s up to us to keep informed and spread the word in our own spheres of influence.

  6. This is false:
    “The .223/5.56×45 round, despite the reputation it has amongst the left, is actually a fairly wimpy round that is severely running out of steam at 500 yards range.”
    I can get a head-shot on a running target at 300m with the F88 Austeyr and the F89 Minimi. That’s inside 500yd, but it’s still quite far.
    However, my point is both those weapons I mentioned are Australian infantry weapons, which is where I learnt to shoot.
    Many armies around the globe are using 5.56 rounds for the majority of their infantry-men. I think the US army has an adaptation of the Minimi called a “Saw” that uses 5.56, too.
    The problem with 7.62 rounds, you see, is they might have better range and target penetration, but they also weigh more. Simply, if you use 5.56 then you can carry more ammo. Lots more.
    So, 5.56 is plenty deadly, men. I was a machine gunner, and my Minimi wasn’t a pea-shooter.

    1. I find the 5.56mm round is effective out to about 400 meters with a rifle, but after that I wouldn’t bother taking the shot (especially if it was windy). A couple of guys I know could hit at 500, but under prime conditions.
      I was a M60 (7.62mm) gunner in the old days and we would do live fire exercises engaging targets at 800 meters. True about the heavier ammo load, but I would still prefer “the pig” over the SAW anyday.

    2. Minimi and Saw are both made by FN. Essentially the same gun.
      The 5.56 is popular for its speed and thus penetration through body armor. But yes, smaller round means you can carry more of them. More is almost always better.

      1. The Saw is more modified, from what I saw. A shorter barrel, you know. Americans basically use it as a spray-gun in urban environments. They never use it at range.

    3. The 5.56×45 is an intermediate rifle cartridge, not a full power one. Muzzle energy out of a 5.56 is @1300 ft lbs, and the .308 Winchester is at 2600 ft lbs at the muzzle, so double. Taking them out to 500 meters leaves the 5.56 at 100 ft lbs, which is a loss of over 90% of its energy, and the .308 is at 1100 ft lbs, which is a loss of around 60%. The critical point is that the 5.56 is half as powerful at short range, but is 10% as powerful at long ranges beyond its design intent. Oddly enough, the ballistics curves are similar, so if you’re simply a paper puncher and deer hunter like me, they both work.
      Bo, I certainly appreciate your service. Thank you. I would not want to get out in front of your machine gun, and the round does a good job for its intent, which is being around in mass quantities for hellacious amounts of lead going down range. I own a couple 5.56’s, and may have just bought a bunch of lower AR receivers, though I can’t really remember, hah. But, my intent in the article was to decry the lib’s belief that the round is a monumental magnum, when we both know it’s an intermediate round. I do appreciate you keeping me on my toes on the facts.

      1. You might be right. I can shoot well, but I’m not an expert. My point was simply that if 5.56 is the main round of some very sophisticated modern armies then it can’t be THAT pissy!

  7. I know just about as close to nothing about guns as possible. However, what I will say is that from what I hear AR-15’s killed and raped the baby jesus, brought down the world trade center, leveled Nagasaki and fingered your mother in the ass.

      1. well, that goes without saying.
        The AR-15 also cancelled Christmas and outlawed birthday caked.
        It has further been surmised that AR-15’s are responsible for the stock market collapse, divorce rape and herpes.

        1. 13 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven AR-15’s and ten magazines, and upon his magazines ten hollow points, and upon his hollow points the name of patriarchy.
          2 And the beast which I saw was like unto an assault rifle, and his feet were as the feet of a Armalite M-15 Light Tactical Carbine, and his mouth as the mouth of a Century Arms AK-47: and the dragon gave him his magazines, and his hollow points , and great explosive rounds.
          3 And I saw one of his AR-15’s as it were shot until empty; and his magazines were refilled: and all the world wondered after the beast.
          4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

        2. The “15” in AR-15 comes from the War on the Christmas and the 15 days leading up to it.

        3. the AR is “Armageddon Realizer”
          Meanwhile, an AR-15 ate my homework.

        4. Actually it is an AR-47, a most deadly hybrid of the AR and AK. I call it the ARAK

        5. AR-47 is, as far as I am aware, a type of AR-15……

        6. Chapter 7, Verse 15 of the New Standard Abridged Liberal-Beating Anabolic edition.

        7. In the AR-15’s defense, I’m sure that it just mistakenly assumed the stock market was not entirely unlike its own stock and assumed it could be safely collapsed.

        8. The AR-15 is also responsible for keeping people home rather then vote Hillary Clinton (or Hilary) depending on the Mandela Effect.

        9. Triggered. I’m guessing you are an AR-15. Banned.

      2. not to mention the great AR-15 bunny massacre of 1988 where all cute bunnies were burned alive by a bunch of angry AR-15’s

        1. Speaking of rabbits, Senator Feinstein has one as a vibrator attachment for her illegally acquired M4, she sets it to fully automatic and watches Home Alone 2 on marathon getting more and more triggered and slurping tapioca from a hose.

        2. wow. You get a gold star from the kneeman. Adding Home Alone 2 and the slurping of tapioca was so unnecessary it can only be considered art. well done.

        3. Definitely keep your eye on Joe Pesci’s performance. He’s a rising star.

        4. Slurping tapioca ‘from a hose’ was really a masterful touch. Its the details that make it fine art.

    1. Every scholar knows they are responsible for the following:
      1. Water into blood
      2. Frogs
      3. Lice
      4. Swarms of flies or wild animals
      5. Diseased livestock
      6. Boils
      7. Thunderstorm of hail and fire
      8. Locusts
      9. Darkness for three days
      10. Death of firstborn

      1. har! yes.
        Also, I hear rumors that they started a certain large flood.

        1. And then the seas were parted by a hailstorm of bullets 😛

        2. not just bullets…bullets that fired from an AR-15
          EDIT: The AR-15 was being fired by another AR-15

        3. I am literally trying so hard not to crack up at work,. Well done, over the top, fucking hilarious.

        1. Nothing but it couldn’t be too pleasant having them rain down onto you. What if they’re Poison Arrow frogs?

        2. These are really pretty, colorful. I like it. Plus it could be the name of a French rooted super hero.

        3. nothing so long as they are sautéed in butter. However, when they are hopping all around it is big trouble.

        4. So, Monsieur, this 14th will we have a chant of Vivre le Roi?

        5. Vive le Roi*
          Wouldn’t count on it. Royalists are still underground and the State education has done a great job not teaching anything about the pre-revolutionary France.
          The fall of the Bastille is such a dumb event to celebrate. An empty prison guarded by 7 old soldiers who got butchered by an unwashed mob.
          Generally the Republic has a shitty mythology.
          If I were in charge the National day would be the 27th of july. Because the 07.28.1214 the French army led by Philippe II defeated a German-English coaliton led by the excommunicated imperator Otton IV and John Lackland, the two hereditary enemies at once, while outnumbered. Plus it was a Sunday, which shows how evil the German and English were, because breaking the Sunday Truce, in these days, was a huge blasphemy.

        6. ugh you French are insufferable. vive le Roi!
          State education not teaching about pre-revolutionary France reminds me of the family guy episde when they take a double decker tour of Germany and the tour guide says nothing happened in Germany from 1933-1945 because everyone was on vacation.

      1. They sure did. And, I have it on good authority, that the AR-15 also raped both Anne Frank and Hellen Keller

        1. The AR was the weapon of choice for the Khmer Rouge, the Nazis, the Bolsheviks and the Imperial Japanese.

        2. I want to change my facetious reply to “that’s Bolshevik!”

    2. They are also responsible for bringing back strike anywhere matches and giving them to kids.

    3. If it wasn’t for those guns, the inner cities would be harmonious bastions of tolerance, peace and understanding. Freaking guns.

    4. Science has found a direct correlation between ownership of AR-15s and global warming. Every time a new AR-15 is purchased, the earth becomes 0.01% hotter, and 14 polar bears die of heat poisoning.

    5. Your mother liked it and if it really killed baby Jesus, leftists would be all for it.

    6. Therein lies the problem. Like with their food, energy and essentials of life they depend on, most people are far removed and ignorant of everything that makes their opinion-driven lives possible. Then, in ignorance, people vote for this and that because, in their own minds it makes sense to them. It borders insanity as people thinking that getting angry at cancer, and likewise guns, will cure both diseases.

  8. Just hold your guns rights for 10 more years, when I’ll move somewhere into the most guns-friendly zone of the US.

    1. So, no almost deserted island, spanish colonial architecture, beautiful naked blondes, a rich wine cellar and a chef working 24/7?
      I’ll be a funnier old man.

        1. Thought you were in your early 30s!!? Damn, people conceal theor identities pretty well.

  9. dont ever give up on your right to bear arms. South of the border we have the right to buy small weapons for house protection and its fucking useless. When farmers got themselves assault rifles and they got organized to repel the cartel operating in Tierra Caliente that was the only solution to a problem that was just growing

    1. I notice western media doesn’t say a word about any of that or the crimes, mass graves, missing persons etc…. Nor the amount of police and government corruption the regular guy in Mexico has to deal with on a daily basis.

      1. it gets tiresome and its bad businesss for the govt, the media and the useless left. When the war started there were daily reports of all this crap but people got tired of it so the media stopped reporting all of the events except the big ones. We have a batshit crazy country, no wonder people get scared of us

    2. ‘Fucking useless’ is right! ONE gun store for civilians – in Mexico City – and have to have the permit before you go there. I lived in Tampico for 10 years and the local military shut down the one practice range we had – some BS about how it ‘encouraged unsafe behavior’.
      The Mexican media also stopped reporting on ‘la inseguridad’ due to the Cartels threatening the journalists and, oftentimes, carrying out those threats. I’ll never forget hearing of a massacre, of 23 folk in a nightclub in Tampico, by way of the China National News Service – whose story was actually about the bulletin from the Chinese Foreign Ministry advising the sailors of their merchant marine to stay aboard ship when calling in Tampico/Altamira.

  10. Great piece. You hit the nail on the head when it comes to the use of language and how the Left works to shift the frame of the debate to their terms such as “compromise” really just being minor steps to full bans and confiscation.

  11. My favorite argument of theirs is when they claim that because these weapons werent invented back then, that somehow the second amendment doesn’t apply to them.
    The beauty of this argument is how easily it can be turned back on them, whether it’s pure dialectic (“Since the Internet wasn’t invented back then, than the first amendment doesn’t apply”) or pure rhetoric (“Since people like you weren’t as stupid back then, the the right to life doesn’t apply and we can shove you in this oven”).

    1. I always countered with, “if the founding fathers could see what a M1 Abrams, A10 Warthog or a squadron of B52s can do, we would be given even more rights to privately own heavier weapons.”

      1. In the War of 1812, Congress issued Letters of Marque to privateers – citizens who turned their ships into warship armed with banks of cannons.

    2. From the DC Court of Appeals decision in Parker (became Heller at SCOTUS):
      “The modern handgun—and for that matter the rifle and
      long-barreled shotgun—is undoubtedly quite improved over its
      colonial-era predecessor, but it is, after all, a lineal descendant
      of that founding-era weapon, and it passes Miller’s standards.
      Pistols certainly bear “some reasonable relationship to the
      preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” They are
      also in “common use” today, and probably far more so than in
      1789. Nevertheless, it has been suggested by some that only
      colonial-era firearms (e.g., single-shot pistols) are covered by
      the Second Amendment. But just as the First Amendment free
      speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown
      to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the
      Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a
      “search,” the Second Amendment protects the possession of the
      modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol. See, e.g., Kyllo
      v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31-41 (2001) (applying Fourth
      Amendment standards to thermal imaging search).

        1. The rulings and amici briefs in both Heller and McDonald are well worth reading. Alan Gura, the lawyer in both cases has posted them http://www.dcguncase.com/blog/ for DC case, not sure about the Chicago case.
          Heller case no is No. 04-7041 at the DC Court level, and it was 07-290 at SCOTUS, if you don’t trust links in posts you can go to the courts’ websites to find the rulings. Found this exchange during the SCOTUS orals regarding the above paragraph interesting.
          GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, Justice Scalia, I think our
          principal concern based on the parts of the court of appeals opinion that seemed to adopt a very categorical rule were with respect to machine guns, because I do think that it is difficult — I don’t want to foreclose the possibility of the
          Government, Federal Government making the argument some day — but I think it is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that’s not protected by the Second
          Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the National Guard, and that’s what the machine gun is.
          CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But this law didn’t involve a
          restriction on machine guns. It involved an absolute ban. It involved an absolute carry prohibition. Why would you think that the opinion striking down an absolute ban
          would also apply to a narrow one — narrower one directed solely to machine guns?
          GENERAL CLEMENT: I think, Mr. Chief Justice, why one might worry about that is one might read the language of page 53a of the opinion as reproduced in the petition appendix that says once it is an arm, then it is not open to the District to ban it. Now, it seems to me that the District is
          not strictly a complete ban because it exempts pre-1976 handguns. The Federal ban on machine guns is not, strictly speaking, a ban, because it exempts pre -pre-law machine guns, and there is something like 160,000 of those.
          JUSTICE SCALIA: But that passage doesn’t mean once it’s an arm in the dictionary definition of arms. Once it’s an arm in the specialized sense that the opinion referred to it, which is — which is the type of a weapon that was used in militia, and it is – it is nowadays commonly held.
          GENERAL CLEMENT: Well
          JUSTICE SCALIA: If you read it that way, I don’t see why
          you have a problem.
          GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, I — I hope that you read it that
          way. But I would also say that I think that whatever the definition that the lower court opinion employed, I do think it’s going to be difficult over time to sustain the notion — I mean, the Court of 16 Appeals also talked about lineal descendants. And it does seem to me that, you know, just as this Court would apply the Fourth Amendment to something like heat
          imagery, I don’t see why this Court wouldn’t allow the Second Amendment to have the same kind of scope, and then
          I do think that reasonably machine guns come within the term “arms.” Now, if this Court wants to say that they don’t — I mean — I mean — we’d obviously welcome that in our — in our obligation to defend the constitutionality of acts of Congress.

      1. Heller-I enjoyed reading Justice Scalia’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment re ‘the people’ which obliterates the leftists’ moronic idea that it constitutes a specially organised militia instead of the general populace.

    3. I remember reading that one of the first First Amendment applications in US history was allowing civilians to purchase cannons. If they could have the heaviest artillery of the day, why can’t we?

  12. You kind of contradicted yourself in regards to high capacity magazines. Gabby Giffords’ shooter was indeed tackled when he had to reload. Isn’t that an argument for limited capacity magazines?

    1. I’d very much like to see a video of that shooting from beginning to end. A few questions immediately come to mind.
      Was anyone else armed? Even her security?
      How long did it take him to unload the clip? It could have been that someone was already charging to take him down while he was still shooting and just managed to get to him around the time he ran out of bullets.
      You could be right, but I’d love to see a video of the incident. If I remember correctly, the guy that shot Gifford’s was a hardcore liberal.

    2. Yes, it is. My point was that the democrats view large standard capacity mags as “high capacity” where the TRUE hi cap mags are large and unwieldy, and you may as well let people have them since they’re really just range toys.

    3. No. It’s an argument for victims to have more balls and seize the initiative.
      In Orlando, that fucker reloaded a bunch of times over the course of three hours and 200 rounds. People are pissing and moaning about how he used “high capacity magazines” and implying that lower capacity magazines would have allowed a Gifford’s type scenario to overtake him while reloading. Of course they ignore that he stopped to reload at least seven fucking times with the high capacity magazines and no one did a fucking thing.

  13. I think Scott Adams has the right idea: Democrats advocate gun control because they want to keep Democrats from shooting other Democrats, especially in the major cities where the elites live; while Republicans oppose gun control because they want to protect themselves and their families from those same armed Democrats.

    1. Upvote. For sure. See Taleeb Starkes book The Uncivil War on Amazon for instance…

  14. I like your description of the term ‘assault weapon’ in terms of where it comes from. But it’s wrong to say it has no meaning.
    ‘Assault Weapon’ is now a legal term in some jurisdictions. It is not a technical description limited to any particular class of weapons, it means whatever the legislature writing the law says it means. For example, in California it has a very broad definition including specific rifles, shotguns and pistols by name and others by general description. For example a SPAS 12 shotgun is specifically named as an assault weapon, any semi-automatic shotgun with a detachable magazine is also defined as an assault weapon. Intratec TEC-9 pistol is specifically named, any semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and a threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer is also defined as an assault weapon.

    1. This is simply the left changing the meaning of a word to usurp its intended meaning, nothing new. Like you said yourself, it means whatever the legislature writing the law says it means. Well if it can mean anything, then it means nothing. Looking forward to the day that my feet fall under the term assault weapons. Hiya!

      1. But it does point out what the liberals really intend to do. Just keep expanding the meaning to include all firearms. They don’t care about the differences, the goal is the eventual elimination of access of non-LEO civilians to all firearms. Kind of like the ‘safe handgun roster’ in California, just keep narrowing the list by either eliminating firearms or by making it too much of a hassle for manufacturers to get approval.

    2. I view it like “cis gender” and “hetero normative” which both only mean “normal.” I agree that the term has legal definitions that basically are “guns we don’t like.” It’s a psychological warfare element that tries to split off the military gun guys from the Fudd Army.

      1. It’s a minor quibble, but a reality in CA. And as we’re learning– that definition keeps expanding because in reality, for our politicians “guns we don’t like” are any guns in non-LEO hands. That’s the point I try and impress on folks who argue for banning them. I ask if they mean pistols- well no. How about shotguns? No those are ok– then I point out how the law bans some, that the definition has expanded— so, where is the end game?
        In most jurisdictions which have no ‘assault weapon’ laws your description is spot on.

  15. Romans took the Swords from certain Germanic tribes that they could not fight back. Arminius’s father said without swords we have no freedom. Governments takes weapons of the era (sword, gun, etc) that they may subjugate the people. Hence the lies about guns in the USA. Turn in your gun, register it, also give up your freedom.

    1. More recently, Germans took the guns from the French, using the registration file the Leon Blum government had introduced.

      1. I thought the French could own guns. They were just hard to get.

  16. Informative article. That said, you can’t educate the left about guns (or anything else, really), because most people allow celebs and the media to think for them.
    Idiots like Wil Wheaton and Whoopi Goldberg send out NRA hate tweets any time there’s an incident involving guns (never mind that this last one featured a Clinton supporter targeting one of the protected classes on the victim pyramid, it’s still the guns/NRA’s fault, lol).

    1. Most gun-haters are either willfully ignorant, or maliciously deceitful. You can tell them all the stats, facts and truths there are, and most will simply go “Scary boom-stick, bad!”

  17. “The Elmer fud army” heh heh heh . Wait till I Tell my brother . Superb article

  18. Luke, you left out a very important buzzword: Ghost gun. For those of you who are unfamiliar with a ghost gun, let’s kick it over to California senator Kevin DeLeon…

  19. Admittedly, I’m not much of a gun expert, but I just don’t see the utility of hi capacity magazines. If you’re really a good shot and need or want to eliminate a threat, I don’t think you need that many bullets to do so.

    1. If confronted by multiple assailants- more rounds is better. That’s why the police, who carry their weapons for self-defense even when raiding a house or business use standard capacity magazines. They aren’t on the offensive spraying and praying. They are only authorized to use deadly force in defense of their life or someone else’s.
      If 15 rounds in a pistol is necessary for self-defense, or 30 rounds in a carbine, then that’s the right number regardless of which type of civilian is wielding it.

    2. Well using the definition from this article, I can say it doesn’t have a utility. The only reason you would want a big drum magazine or something of the sort is for range shooting, as if you are using it as a light machine gun (e.g. an assault rifle with a heavy barrel and bigger ammo supply).

    3. I don’t see the utility of the real hi-caps, but the “50% more” mags are good. I think a 30 round mag is a great choice for an AR, with the 40 and 20 being good second choices. 10 is too small, 50 is too big.

    4. Being a “really good shot” at the gun range firing at paper targets, in the woods shooting at a trophy deer, and in a combat situation with other humans shooting back changes considerably over the continuum. There are those that do well in the first situation but are unable to exert mental control to repeat the performance in the latter two. That’s a big reason for the extra shots.

  20. The biggest problem with the AR-15 is it’s old technology (1960s) that’s had problems working well from it’s inception. It has a big button on the side you can hit if the rounds don’t load properly.

      1. Yes, it was developed in the late 1950’s and and adopted by the military in the early 60’s. I would disagree that just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s bad, the Marines just readopted the 1911, a hundred year old design, and the AK-47 is arguable the best gun ever designed
        because of how rugged and reliable it is.

        1. “I would disagree that just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s bad” I never said it’s bad, in fact we really haven’t had any developments besides lighter and stronger polymers since the 60’s. The AR-15 though, just isn’t good. It does have the fact that they are very easily customization and cheap going for them, but I just am not a huge fan of it.
          “and the AK-47 is arguable the best gun ever designed” I have to disagree. Sure it’s rugged, but so is the AKM, AK-74, RPK, AK-12, and pretty much all other AK tree guns. But to the same extent, they don’t have great accuracy and the AK-47 uses an unnecessarily big bullet.

    1. The forward assist is there because there is no reciprocating charging handle, which is on damn near everything else. The German G3 also does not have one, but the Kraut solution was to run it with that roller delayed blowback system so hard that the Zee Kartridge Vill Go Een!

  21. It was 1986 that autos were no longer allowed to be manufactured for the civilian market, not 1989. Check out prices at Sturmgewehr in the NFA section for pre-May autos. $30K for an MP5, $11K for an Uzi, $16K for an M16… we’re talking about 30 year old guns here where semi-auto equivalents with modern features are all 1/10 the price.
    Something not mentioned in this article that I think should be was the supremes just upholding the ability to permanently ban domestic violence convicts from owning guns. As discussed here on ROK, a malicious woman has all of the power of the state in her corner. In effect, a scorned woman can effectively take away a man’s right to keep and bear arms with a sobby phone call. Many states now are moving to seize guns even before a judge makes a decision.
    The state is thrilled with the ability to seize someones guns, and the cucks are terrified to do something in a male-versus-female situation.

    1. And per usual, the only one of the lot who took a pro-constitution stance was Thomas, the object of the worst scorn from the left because he actually believes in the rights enshrined there.
      I should add, Sotomayor joined Thomas, but not in full.

    2. I heard this too, Pissed me the fuck off. Misdemeanor offences will restrict your constitutional rights. But hey lefties will give felons the right to vote back. Fucking scum all of them.

  22. I’ve seen a lot of lefties growing frustrated because they know they’re full of shit when it comes to AR-15s. So now, some are kind of conceding the right to bear arms, but they’re saying stupid shit like, “but what about regulating ammo?” They justify this by saying, “Okay, you have the right to bear arms, but the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mention ammo.” I saw a meme that likened buying ammo to buying Sudafed, where people are limited and will be flagged for large purchases. With these “common sense” suggestions, every gun owner in America will be deemed a terrorist after firing 200 rounds down range.

  23. Anyone else see that FN is finally making a semi-auto 249? I was drooling over that.

  24. I like that one video of news somewhere inwhich some broad who hates guns cant say what a barrel shroud is and why it should be banned.

  25. I worked in the media (a small radio station) and I am myself a firearm owner. I’ve seen and heard many stupidities over the years.
    It’s up to you to believe me or not when I tell you that most of the journalists and other media personnel don’t have a clue on what they talk about when the topic is firearms. They do not only don’t know what they are talking about, but they also spread lies, mostly because they are themselves Liberal/Leftists opposed to firearms.
    Gun Laws are more strict here in Canada, no civilian can own an full auto, and yet, there are still many Liberals talking about machine guns used to commit crimes.
    Last April, on Radio-Canada (the French-Canadian CBC), on one of the most popular shows, a woman representing “Poly se souvient” (a group against firearms borned after the Polytechnique shooting of December 6h 1989) called Nathalie Provost blatantly lied on the air when she claimed that Canadian Firerarms Owners have the right to sell firearms to someone who do not possess a valid Federal Firearm License, while it it not true.
    When Firearm Owners asked Radio-Canada to correct the information, they refused to do so.
    More information here (in French) : http://ici.radio-canada.ca/tele/tout-le-monde-en-parle/2015-2016/segments/entrevue/6195/nathalie-provost-guy-morin

  26. This is a picture of two assassins in Dublin. They went into a hotel and shot up the place with two AK47’s killing one. AK47’s are illegal in Ireland. If you want automatic weapons you can get them anywhere on the planet. They may be difficult and expensive to obtain in some jurisdictions but with the right connections assault weapons and ammo are available.

  27. I tried like crazy to correct a couple leftists on Facebook in regards to what an assault rifle is, and how an AR-15 is NOT one, and they weren’t having it. One said “what difference does it make,” the other lectured me on the “bigger picture.” Neither of them have a clue or want a clue, but they sure want to make their point, albeit built on falsehood.

    1. Why are you friends with people like that? I have deleted all former friends, family and associates who may turn traitor. I will not have them reporting me or my weapons to the Govt. As far as I am concerned they are the enemy, we all know I certainly am.

      1. Because I didn’t know they believed in lying until long after they went on my friends list. I figure they simply won’t survive once everything crashes because not to protect themselves.

  28. No doubt when they are finished with this well they can always raise hysteria over ‘Assault Pressure Cookers’ that the Boston Marathon Bombers used. Liberals are pathetic parasites who rant and rave and are more interested in growing their power over lives of ordinary people as opposed to saving the lives of ordinary people latest example being in Scotland whose politics are to the Right of the old Soviet Union who after raising all kinds of hysteria are now banning ownership of BB Guns requiring anybody wanting one prove he has a ‘need’ and pay for an expensive ownership license, talk about Nuts.

  29. I keep saying that the gun issue is merely one to get people to waste time and resources defending them when in reality the newer technology the NWO has will render them useless.
    While we are all flagellating and buying weapons and ammo that is time we are not securing weapons and measures that really could pose a threat to the machines they will be rolling out on us.
    Shit like IEDs, incindiary devices, anti-material rifles and others are what could make some difference but everyone is focusing on what they are being told to focus on to deny resistance any such countermeasures.
    The war for freedom on this planet has been lost since the 90’s and before that even with the advanced ET technologies we’ve since customized for ourselves.

  30. For me this is a non issue. I don’t play the gun control “debate” game, nor do I involve myself with the scaremongering tactics of leftist luddites parading the latest mass shooting victims around as justification for more useless, unenforceable “gun control” laws. The 2nd Amendment is clear and concise on this matter, with the Supreme Court agreeing on its intent and the Appeals court upholding the same (See District of Columbia vs. Heller). Even if they did succeed in passing a total ban, what are they going to do? There’s a jillion and a half guns in the hands of a jillion private owners in the USA alone and not everyone registers (or is even required to register) their guns. Sure they might get the low hanging fruit of those who bought theirs at a store and had to fill out paperwork. But that doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface. So what’ll the brilliant plan be after that? Search through every single house in America?
    Laws are only effective when there is a willingness to follow them. And the only people who are going to follow even more of these useless “feel good” gun control laws are the leftist idiots who don’t even want guns in the first place.

  31. “Fully automatic weapons are illegal to manufacture for civilian use.” Can anyone explain to me why? Sounds unconstitutional.

    1. You can buy them ( after the paperwork, the extensive background check, and pay the tax) if they were manufactured prior to 1986. I don’t recall the details but, in order for congress to pass a spending bill they needed one more vote and an anti gun senator said he would vote for it (spending bill) if he was allowed an amendment banning civilians from purchasing new machine guns, hence any manufactured after that date cannot be legally bought or possessed by anyone other than police or military.
      There wasn’t much fanfare about it at the time as most people didn’t even realize they could buy/possess machine guns so there was very little demand for them. After the ban the price of automatic weapons went up sharply because of a permanent limited supply.
      Sounds like a back room unconstitutional deal to me also.

  32. Every time I get into a discussion with some naive, ignorant, liberal, gun control Droid, I let them rant on and on. Than I ask them one question: do you, or have you, EVER held, owned, or shot a gun ??? 99.9% reply “No”, in which case I quickly remind them that they know absolutely zero about the subject and therefore need to shut up and become educated. Naturally, I suggest a lifetime NRA membership as a great place to start.

  33. I saw the honorable Sen Diane Fienstein on television one time saying ” the pistol grip on assault weapons makes it easier to spray bullets”. Silly old hag.
    I have never gone to the trouble of researching it but, I was always under the impression that the pistol grip on a rifle simply made it easier to hang on to because of the position of the wrist it would be harder to leverage out of the hand such when falling or if an enemy attempts to snatch it from the hand.

    1. If “to spray bullets” means to use automatic fire, then her statement is correct. Not that it really matters, though. Unless you are storming a trench or clearing a room, automatic fire is not particularly useful. It mostly results in you emptying your mag without hitting anything.

      1. A pistol grip has nothing to do with how fast it shoots. She is a moron.

        1. Yes, she might be a moron and no, of course the pistol grip not related
          to how many bullets per second the weapon shoots. But the pistol grip
          makes it easier to hold the weapon still when firing. An automatic weapon without a pistol grip would be extremely difficult to aim — within a few rounds of automatic fire you would be pointing anywhere but at your target.

  34. Democrats have done more to bring in new firearm owners and shooters than the NRA ever could have. The assault weapon ban created a market for them. People rushed to buy them before the ban took affect, then some of them took it to the range and said “hey this is fun”. Then the ban expired, the price dropped and it was all quiet for a while until the election of Obama, the the rumblings of more gun bans/control started going around then millions of people started rushing to buy AR style rifles before another ban could take place. Many manufacturers saw a market and stepped in to fill it. These new owners also went to the range and said” hey this is fun! I want another one!” They never were all that popular before among civilians and gun ownership had been going DOWN for years, if they had left well enough alone it would probably still be going down. There have been so many sold the last few years they will never be able to get them all.
    I grew up in a very firearm friendly area where most every one has one or more and even old ladies who live alone usually have a 38 in the nightstand and probably a shotgun too. Up until a few years ago I didn’t even know ANYONE who had an AR style rifle, now they are everywhere. Most every farmer around here has always had a rifle in his truck it used to be a bolt action deer rifle now they all have ARs.
    In the mid 80s I bought a Ruger mini 14 just because I thought it was cool and ammo was dirt cheap, it came with a 20 round mag and at that time I didn’t know of anyone else around who had anything like that. I still have it and it has fired tens of thousands of rounds without a malfunction yet although shooting isn’t as cheap as it once was.

  35. So if you take AR-15, turn the letters into #’s (A = 1, R = 17), and you multiply them (1x15x1x17) and you add 411 (really 911 but the nine is sinisterly opened on top for extra ammo loading) then……O.M.G!!! its 666!!!! the mark of the beast!!!!

  36. You should really expand on what actually is a machine gun and what it takes to own one legally.
    The manufacture, ownership, and possession of a machine gun has been heavily restricted since the 1986 (ironically named) Firearm Owners Protection Act. No bona fide machine gun has been used in the commission of crime since the early 1930’s. And in some states it is actually illegal to own one unless you did before the ban date was passed (about 12 states, but you can still pass them on to relatives in inheritance or sell them to other lawful owners.)
    There are approximately 200,000 legal firearms circulating in the private civilian stock. There might be another 10,000 more or so that have yet to be “discovered” because they have a long shelf life and could have been stored away for decades yet to be discovered. Even if someone inherits a bona-fide machine gun they need to produce paperwork to show it was purchased before 1986 to lawfully register. If not, they have to disassemble it and sell the parts at best. There may be another 10-30,000 plus in private circulation that are unregistered, either due to disobedience, political ignorance, or they were acquired illegally.
    Also, the “assault” weapons ban of the 90’s was based on nothing more then the cosmetic feels of a rifle. It still permitted you to have at most two of the “banned” features. Doesn’t sound like much of a “ban” to me. This is why it didn’t do much to reduce violent crime and the Congress let it sunset in 2004.
    As for “high capacity” magazines, a magazine that doesn’t contain enough rounds to let you neutralize your target is useless. That is why a magazine contains as many rounds as it does. On average that is how many rounds it takes to put down your opponent. If you think some ban on these magazines is going to magically reduce violent crime then you need to get real. There are so many private circulation that any real ban would take 50-75 years (by that time we will be shooting lasers at each other) to make any real difference.
    If we really wanted to stop gun violence we would be talking about the following policy solutions. 1) Universal federal carry legislation without a registry. 2) real money to ensure the NiCS database has real data integrity including people who are on the “terrorist watch list” not just importing data from one database never intended to control guns to another that had a completely different purpose 3) complete “shall issue” mandated by the federal government. No more allowing the last hold out states to deny their citizens the right to defend themselves. 4) Tax rebates for those who take firearms training course or purchase guns for self defense or obtain universally recognized permits. (again strict protections against making a registry….yeah hahaha I get it the FED GOV will not recognize that right).
    America was once an armed nation and was only disarmed in the 1960’s. Apparently now it must once again become an armed nation. Nothing wrong with that. Ever since states and the FED GOV have been rolling back gun control laws the violent crime rate has been going down, year by year. Why not continue such a successful public policy?

  37. Recently started looking into getting my rifle permit in my anti gun city (I already own pistols); I read the list of banned properties: all of which are on the list above. What kind of ah*t logic is this? I can’t have a magpul front grip because it’s more ergonomic?!! I can’t have a weaver or mil-std rail because lib pussies are afraid of a flashlight??!

  38. The fact that the AR-15 has become the favored icon for the progressive propaganda machine is just one more example of the inversion of Truth.
    These “Scary, black” weapons platforms are predominantly owned by responsible people between the coasts, while other “scary, black” elements send lead downrange with impunity in our Second City every weekend. And we hear nothing but crickets.
    The messaging: do not pay attention to the actual “scary, black” elements and their culture of gun worship, intimidation, and violence. Instead we need to employ some “common sense” by focusing all of our efforts on these quiet, responsible, white gun owners who own a rather ubiquitous weapon.
    A weapon system that also happens to be possessed by multiple agencies of the Federal Government and would likely be the one pointed at them should they fail to pay their taxes.
    The left adores these kinds of sleight-of-hand tactics. It allows them to retain their self-appointed moral superiority while injecting more venomous totalitarian mind-control into the sheeple.
    In the real world, even the most vehement lefty drone would rather push their new-world-order-approved brownish baby in a $600 stroller through a gauntlet of AR-15-toting white folks than go on a midnight milk run in most of Chicago or Detroit or New Orleans.
    But whatever. Just turn up that hip-hop and celebrate all this Diversity that is just waiting to cleanse the evil white empire of their unnecessary desire to exercise their Second Amendment right.

  39. liberals usually back way off on this one since it tends to mobilize
    the Elmer Fudd Army, the reserve troops of the NRA, who don’t care about
    everyone losing their AR-15s, but will bring the heat if you go after
    their Remington.
    They will come after the Remingtons (and Winchesters and Brownings and…….) next. after they succeed with the ARs. I can just imagine the propaganda………
    “This .30-06 (or .308) used by the assassin is far more powerful than the “devastating” round shot by the recently banned AR-15. Surely no common citizen needs a round that powerful to hunt deer when other hunters use a bow and arrow.”

  40. The only compromise offered liberals on gun control should be “Shut up, never mention your ideas again, and I won’t shoot you for your treason.”
    Hear! Hear!

  41. I looked, and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hades was following with him. Authority was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with AR-15 and with large capacity magazines and with collapsible stocks and by the suppressor upon its barrel.

  42. So my pee shooter .22 that I used to hunt rabits with is an assault rifle because it is semi automatic? Good to know, maybe I can scare some liberals with it.

  43. Small correction, 1986 is the date for civilian owned machine guns aka full autos.
    The left really pisses me off with trying to fuck with my guns. How about you MYOFB you tyrannical liberal?

  44. Whenever there is a shooting, liberals always say it was an AR-15.They do not even know what a damn AR-15 looks like

  45. The word *conspiracy theorist* was coined by the CIA to silence any critics about JFK. Now it’s used to demonize the right and center who aren’t towing the socialist line.

Comments are closed.