I guess it’s that time again. Clue-deprived Democrats are vying for the title of “Most Likely to Stick Foot in Mouth” on the issue of “assault weapons.” Today’s candidates for this dubious honor are Butthead O’Rourke, who has decided that his loss to Ted Cruz in Texas despite loads of outside money and a half-assed effort to counter him on the part of the Cruz campaign translates well into a presidential run, and Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy, who lies so hard on gun control, that even the Washington Post had to give him three Pinocchios on his claims.
First up is Butthead, whose lack of knowledge on guns is only rivaled by my lack of knowledge on astrophysics. Butthead decided that he would demonstrate his complete ignorance on the AR-15 by claiming that 1) it’s a weapon of war (that’s used in no military anywhere) and 2) you, peon, don’t need it. Apparently, Butthead thinks that to stand out among the clown car of Democrats running for the presidential nomination, he needs to be extra stupid.
Beto O’Rourke: “If you own an AR-15, keep it. Continue to use it responsibly and safely. I just don’t think that we need to sell anymore weapons of war into this public.” pic.twitter.com/uqMA1jWOTf
— The Hill (@thehill) March 17, 2019
He could have just stopped at “I don’t think,” but he’s just not that smart, so instead he makes some incredibly stupid claims, including the ole “blow a hole in your back the size of an orange” whopper that even Snopes had a hard time spinning!
This is a photo a friend of mine posted last year, showing the actual holes an AR-15 made. Snopes used the photo in its fact check, which I appreciate, because the hysterical claims meant to bolster support for an “assault weapons” ban were getting ridiculous.
Just to make sure, I also texted a friend of mine after a conversation with one of my son’s fraternity brothers, who also made some ridiculous claims about these rifles. No matter what you may think about Ted Nugent as an ally in the battle for our Second Amendment rights – and he’s certainly been controversial over the years – you can’t deny that Ted is knowledgeable about hunting and about firearms writ large.
I had asked the question to confirm after I saw Remington .223 ammunition for sale at a sports store labeled “varmint ammunition,” and since the AR-15 is commonly chambered for this ammo, I wanted to get Ted’s take, because testosterone-head frat boys are unlikely to listen to moms, but they will listen to irreverent rock stars.
Butthead proceeds to magnanimously tell us that if we own an AR-15, we can keep it and use it responsibly and safely, but he doesn’t think we need to sell any more of these evil “weapons of war” to any more people.
Gosh – thanks, dad!
And screw you! You are not qualified to gauge my need to buy this firearm or to sell it to anyone I want, especially given your complete ignorance on the topic and lack of knowledge about the basic functions of this gun! It’s my property, penis wrinkle. Try again.
Second Democrat in the gallery is Chris Murphy, who can’t possibly keep from making claims about guns that are such utter horseshit, that even the liberal media can’t spin them as true – no matter how hard they try.
Nobody needs an AR-15 to hunt.
Nobody needs a semi-automatic rifle to defend their home.
But mass shooters NEED these weapons in order to murder as many people as efficiently as possible.
And so nobody will miss them when they are illegal – except for the killers.
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) March 16, 2019
Gee, aren’t you glad Murphy and other Democrats exists in the world to tell you what you need or don’t need?
Murphy is right that unless you’re hunting rabbits, no one needs an AR-15 to hunt. See Ted’s reply to me above.
That said, no one needs light, maneuverable, affordable rifle to defend their home? Really?
I bet this Philadelphia couple was happy that there was an AR-15 handy when a drugged-out gremlin forced his way into their home.
I bet this teenager was relieved to have an AR-15 with which to defend himself after three slime bags invaded his home and one of them pulled a gun.
The engaged the violent murderer in Sutherland Springs also used his own AR-15. Will Murphy claim that only killers will miss these firearms?
In other words, Chris Murphy and his fellow Democrats are buffoons, and we don’t need him telling us what we need, what kind of tools we should use to defend our homes and our families, and what we should or should not be allowed to purchase – especially when he has a record of abject ignorance and outright false statements on the issue.
Democrats are not qualified to tell me what I need or don’t need to defend my home and family.
They are elected to represent the people, not to be the arbiters of their needs, especially when they have privileges the rest of us don’t, such as armed security and safe neighborhoods.
Jeff Gauch says: Because they’re dumb and/or evil.
Well, they’re all evil, but only a few of them are deliberately evil.
sound awake says: yes lets give all our guns to a bunch of godless big government loving baby killing muslim friendly Christian haters
it
will
never
happen
the writing is on the wall
its been there a while for anyone interested
-look and see-
it even has her signature on it
right there at the bottom-in all caps:
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
these people hate us
and if allowed to come to power they will make themselves the final arbiter of who lives and who dies in america
they broke from us not when they decried us as deplorable
they did so when they marked us as irredeemable
-as in not worth keeping around-
and insodoing they can no longer be regarded as our countrymen
we must think plan and act accordingly
experience hath shewn that our very survival depends on not giving them all of our guns
and that starts with not giving them any of our guns
Note that neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution speak of “needs.” They speak of the people’s rights and the responsibilities delegated to the federal government. “Needs,” when used in a political context, is a marker of socialist tendencies: the desire to play nanny to the whole of Mankind. As for the “common good”…but it’s early in the AM and I shouldn’t get too exercised before I’ve had breakfast.
GWB says: Exactly right.
Steverino says: An AR-15 is not so much a home defense weapon. A handgun is better for inside your home, perhaps a shotgun for outside your home. An AR-15 is better suited to defense at a medium distance, such as a hundred yards. It is rare for criminals to engage you at a hundred yards. Must gun fights happen within six feet.
The reason we have weapons like the AR-15 is to check a tyrannous government, as the revolunary Americans did against the British to win our freedom. That is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, which is expressed in the ownership of AR-15s.
Jeff Gauch says: Let’s just say that the topic of AR-15s in home defense is subject to vigorous debate. Not quite 9mm vs. .45 ACP, but close.
An AR-15, being a rifle, has a lot more muzzle energy than a handgun, which is important in making bad guys stop. Since it has relatively little energy for a rifle, it has a significantly less chance of overpenetrating and winding up in your neighbor’s wall. The AR-15, being Tactical Barbie, has plenty of accessories available to fine-tune the weapon for your specific needs. On the other hand, it is longer than a handgun, making it more unwieldy. But most home defense doctrine recommends against clearing your own house, instead you should pick a point to defend – say the top of the stairs leading to your kids’ rooms – and hold the bad guys at bay until the cops arrive.
GWB says: and hold the bad guys at bay until the cops arrive
I would prefer to say “until backup arrives” in order to not reinforce any idea that the cops are the only “right” people to deal with criminals. But a sound comment in reply to Steverino.
(My only concern with an AR-15 or shotgun in a home defense situation, is if the bad guy gets inside the radius of your weapon, it’s nothing better than a club. A pistol shortens that radius to a negligible distance and allows for usage when corps-a-corps. Otherwise, my personal preference is a shotgun, followed by a pistol if the bad guys require more rounds.)
RandyGC says: That kind of depends on your definition of home defense. I did note that you stated “inside your home”, but having lived in rural areas where it could take at least a 1/2 hour for one of the 2 deputies on duty to respond, I’d much rather engage goblins outside the house (from inside), and I’d prefer the precision and accuracy of an AR vs a shotgun at ranges beyond my front or back porch.
Many years ago had a car load of yahoos that took exception to comments I made about the KKK (ex: what do you call someone in the Klan with an IQ of 90? A trio) and decided to burn a cross in our yard (not actual Klan, just some punk kids who thought they were tough, and coudl’t mange to do more than try to light the pile of wood they brought since they couldn’t figure out how to make a cross)
All I had was a bolt action .22, and fortunately a couple of rounds into the gravel road in front of the car (30 yards or so)(so they could see the impacts in their headlights) convinced them to move along, but it it had gotten uglier, an AR would have come in handy.
Different situations, different tools, YMMV. I do agree that a prime purpose of AR’s etc. is protection against government overreach, and not optimum for defense _inside_ the home. (Now an SBR 9MM AR… 🙂 )
GWB says: Ummmm, engaging potential evildoers outside your domicile, without any clear threat (or if the only threat they represent is a fire hazard to your lawn/pasture), is one of the surest ways for you to end up in the hoosegow, even in a Second Amendment Sanctuary county.
I R A Darth Aggie says: Tidbit: there are people who hunt wild hog with 5.56 ammunition. If you google on “hunting hog with AR-15” (minus the “s) you’ll get a boatload of hits. I guess they are varmints, so…
Now, if you let someone else determine what you “need”, you’ll be surprised to find out how little you actually need. I’ll be polite, but they need to be told to pound sand. In no uncertain terms.
GWB says: I wouldn’t, from a safety point-of-view. I’d at least move up to a 7.62. (I would think you’d need a very hot load to take down a wild hog with .223/5.56, and wouldn’t want to run that through a standard AR-15 configuration. But I suppose it’s doable.)
GWB says: “blow a hole in your back the size of an orange”
Since I thought we were going to shoot them all in the back (following the example of the racist cops**), that doesn’t make any sense.
If he’s talking exit wound…. No, even then, it isn’t going to make a hole the size of an orange. A clementine, maybe – assuming it’s a hollow point, hits so it expands to its full potential, and has the energy to drive all the way through and exit. However, if it exits at all, it’s most likely due to it NOT expanding upon entry, and therefore will leave a hole the size of a … nickel.
But, holes in a paper target (which provides no resistance to anything that would cause expansion of the bullet) are NOT good demonstrations of exit wound potential.
As to the lethality of the .223. Well, no, it’s not “under-powered”. The .223 round is pretty much identical to the one used in the M-16/M-4. (There’s some issues about interchangeability of .223 and 5.56×45mm NATO, but they are mostly the same.) The reason it is considered inadequate for hunting in some states is because deer, elk, mountain goat, etc. hearts are located behind much more meat (read “bullet-slowing armor”) than in humans. And, it’s considered inappropriate to wound an animal and have it bleed out (it toughens the meat, and you have a chance of not finding the animal, and you have now killed it without purpose). Shooting a caribou or bear is NOT the same as shooting a human (we are much more fragile). There’s also the aspect of foliage penetration – you are shooting the animal in the wild, with possible intervening obstacles (you’re not going to often shoot through a tree trunk, but even leaves will slow/deflect a round with insufficient energy). (This is why “brush guns” – for use in areas of dense foliage – are often high caliber, including the larger pistol rounds.)
This is why the .223 (or 5.56mm) is PLENTY effective for self-defense (and warfare), while simultaneously being “under-powered” for some hunting.
weapons of war into this public
As to this? He’s ABSOLUTELY, 100% WRONG. OUR public is absolutely SUPPOSED TO HAVE “weapons of war”. We ARE the military in the US of A, as free citizens of this beautiful country.
When anyone tells you that you, Mr John Q Public, should not have weapons of war, ask them, “Then how the hell am I supposed to fight the war?” When they ask “What war?” with that shocked look on their face, reply “The one against those who would take over my republic and turn it into a socialist hellhole.”
Murphy is right that unless you’re hunting rabbits, no one needs an AR-15 to hunt.
Again, that’s wrong. It IS perfectly legal in many states to use one to hunt – more than rabbits. The deer in some states are smaller (like TX – about the only thing that can be said to be smaller in TX) and a properly loaded .223 is adequate. Personally, I would step up to an AR-10* because of other considerations (like feral hogs running rampant), but a .223/5.56 is good enough some places.
The engaged
A word or two missing in there?
Will Murphy claim that only killers will miss these firearms?
Well, see, if the first guy didn’t have an AR-15 to shoot those people, then the second guy wouldn’t need an AR-15 to defend them. We should call this concept “Pollicyanna” – a portmanteau of “policy” and “Pollyanna” – defined as the overly optimistic outlook that any ‘virtuous’ policy will never run afoul of things like human nature and unintended consequences.
Democrats are not Almost no one is qualified to tell me what I need or don’t need to defend my home and family.
FIFY. The whole concept that our “betters” are qualified to tell us how to live our lives (outside of the morals inherent in natural and common law) is the entire basis for post-modern totalitarianism. That way lies despair and slavery, whether the slave-master bears a D or an R after their name.
[* An important aside, imo. AR-15s are specifically .223/5.56mm firearms, using a particular sort of construction. Very many people see anything that resembles the M-16 (of which the AR-15 is the civilian variant) as an “AR-15”. This is not so. An AR-10 is the same construction, but is a 7.62mm x 51 round (or a .308 Winchester). Politicians and media cretins have been noted in the past identifying an AR-10 clone as an AR-15. They are not the same weapon or the same ammunition, though they might look identical in a picture. Here’s a pic of the two rounds compared, with the top round being the 7.62 used in the AK-47, and the NATO round being the one used in an AR-10.]
[** Yes, that was sarcasm.]
Scott says: Great post GWB, but I’ll take exception with one point. The AR-15, was designed, as you said, for the 5.56 / .223, but it is currently avail in a wide variety of calibers of similar overall length, to include .300 blackout, 6.5 Grendel, .50 Beowulf, 7.62×39, .458 SOCOM, .450 Bushmaster, and others. The AR-10, as you mention is designed on the 7.62×51 / .308, , but it too is available in other calibers like the 6.5 Creedmoor. All of this just makes the point that these are very versatile platforms, and very well suited to self defense at different ranges (especially depending on configuration, as they are also avail in pistol lengths.)
GWB says: Aren’t those technically “AR-15-like” then? or “AR-15 clones”?
Or are we just using “AR-15” now like we use “kleenex”?
(I concur on the versatility and such.)
Scott says: Yes, it has become a bit more generic, as in “AR-15 platform”, similar to the fact that you can now get pistols described as “1911 pattern” in calibers other than .45 (ooh the sacrilege St. John Moses Browning must be spinning in his grave!)
Whelp, if the Democrats are calling for the AR-15 to be safe, legal and rare, I should by some stock in some of the manufacturers.
GWB says: And, via Twitchy, Joe Scarborough actually twitted this:
Those suggesting the AR-15 was NOT developed as a weapon of war should read up on history. The AR-15 was developed as a military weapon to replace the M-14. Eugene Stoner designed it to be lighter and more lethal than the M-14.
It was far deadlier than the M-16 used in Vietnam.
Yes, he actually claimed that. *facepalm*
I also think this (from a subsequent tweet), “As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the Second Amendment“, is an absolute lie.
The ignorance of these people is so arrogantly profound……..
DE Wilson says: I don’t have an AR15, but if I decide I want one, I want to go and buy one when I want it.
Tim Thompson says: Democratic Communists are just so weak it’s a wonder how they made it to adulthood. Unfortunately most never served in the military or they would understand the 2nd amendments protections. With what we are seeing their weak kneed approach to our civil liberties and our constitution it’s no wonder we conservatives shake in our boots thinking they may gain ultimate power over us with all three branches of government under their control. One thing is certain when and if that happens I believe it will be the straw that broke the camels back and we will fight to stop them from destroying what’s left of the United States of America. We own guns most of them don’t and more than likely the military, police, ICE will side with patriots against their push to destroy our constitutional Republic. God help us if Americans don’t wake up and expel them in 2020.
20 Comments