While the rest of the country has focused on Impeachment Theater in Congress, Joe Biden has been mulling over more restrictions of the Second Amendment. On Wednesday, Susan Rice, Biden’s domestic policy advisor, met with reps from gun control groups. These included Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety. She also met with Parkland families on Thursday.
Sunday is the third anniversary of the shooting at Marjory Douglas High School in Parkland, FL. So of course the Biden administration is making hay of the event.
Biden called on Congress to enact tougher gun restrictions:
“This Administration will not wait for the next mass shooting to heed that call. We will take action to end our epidemic of gun violence and make our schools and communities safer. Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.”
Oh, where to start with this. In the hands of Joe Biden, “commonsense gun law reforms” are anything but commonsense.
First of all, all 50 states have some sort of regulations on gun ownership, some more stringent than others. But “banning assault weapons?”
Say it with me: the AR-15, which is the boogeyman for gun grabbers, is not an “assault weapon.” And as for “gun manufacturers who put weapons of war on our streets?”
This is a “weapon of war:”
MOH recipient Sgt. Dakota Meyer with M240 machine gun. DVIDSHUB/flickr/CC BY 2.0.
Gun manufacturers are not putting these firearms on the street.
Now you know that Joe is spouting this nonsense so he can scare as many people as possible. Thus, he can put as many restrictions on gun owners as he’d like. In his best of all his possible worlds, he and his fellow Democrats would be eliminating the Second Amendment. So now, according to press secretary Jen Psaki, White House officials are meeting with anti-gun groups to develop A Plan.
However, they don’t know what that plan is yet. But rest assured they’re working on one, said Psaki.
Meanwhile, gun sales in 2020 were up by record numbers, due mainly to COVID and all those “mostly peaceful protests.” Plus, January gun sales surged 60% across the country. It’s no wonder, either: with Biden in the White House, and Dems running the show in Congress, Americans who revere the Second Amendment are worried about being slammed with more restrictions.
But I’m sure criminals in Chicago are sweating (ahem) bullets over Biden’s gun proposals. *rolls eyes*
Last year the Windy City saw 792 homicides, the biggest number since 2016, and far outpacing 2019’s tally of 519. That’s a whopping increase of 55%. Plus, 2021 is tracking 2020; so far there have been 72 homicides compared with 75 in 2020.
And how are most homicides committed in Chicago? With a gun, of course. Like 98% of all deaths, in fact.
But don’t think that Joe Biden’s gun restrictions will have much impact on Chicago’s homicides. That’s because the city is awash in illegal guns, with a large number coming in from neighboring Indiana. And even though Chicago is requiring perps convicted of gun crimes — such as illegal possession or violence — to register, that’s not happening. Hardly any of them get punished for failing to follow the law.
That’s because gun runners and gang bangers are like the honey badger: they don’t care.
Neither, apparently, does the Biden administration care about the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. As for employees at gun and ammunition manufacturers — if Biden were to have his way, they’d be joining Keystone pipeline workers in the unemployment line.
The good news, however, is that while Democrats control all branches of government, they’ll need support in the Senate to pass gun restrictions. It’s time to put Impeachment Theater behind us and focus on the damage the Biden administration will do to the Second Amendment and the rights of gun owners.
Welcome, Instapundit readers!
Featured image: Fibonacci Blue/flickr/cropped/CC BY 2.0.
Jo Rae Cray Cray says: “Now you that Joe is spouting this nonsense so he can scare as many people as possible.” Does anyone proofread the posts on this blog? I guess this is another example of or our failed public schools.
Kim Hirsch says: What are you talking about?
Yes, I do my best to proofread my posts. But you might want to check yours.
I guess this is another example of or our failed public schools.
“Or our” failed public schools?
BTW, I attended parochial school. Just to set the record straight.
Have a good day.
thesgm says: Jo Rae Cray Cray has a Skitt’s Law violation here.
I am going to take exception to your post for another reason. It is one that bothers me significantly because it involves the doublethink I usually associate with Democrats.
Its like this…the 2A and its supporters say that the right to bear arms underpins our freedoms and serves at the final check in the balance of power in our country. That specifically alludes to some type of armed conflict aka “war.”
The most capable weapon available for that underpinning? The AR15. Those of us who own AR15s think they are fun to shoot, legos for dads, and, if need arises, a weapon of war.
But then in the next breath, the “AR15 is not an ‘assault weapon'”
First, every firearm type known to man has been used as an assault weapon sometime in its history. But, secondly and more importantly, the statement seeks to play off Democrats’ ignorance of gun terminology and that ‘gotcha’ gets us into doublethink territory…when is a weapon of war not a weapon of war? When it doesn’t have select fire??
The old M16s you see in Walking Dead were semi or full-auto..that was the selection. The Viet Kong watched young conscripts panic in the jungle and planned their attacks to let the US Soldiers go full autagettem and expend all their ammo uselessly.
So the next generation of M16s changed from full-auto to a 3 round burst. This change recognized the change in warfare. We don’t have armies charging across open fields at each other anymore, they don’t even teach the bayonet course in Basic Training anymore. It is those types of assaults that select fire is specifically designed for…flock shooting masses of enemies.
I have 2 tours, Iraq and Afg, and am retired from the Army Reserve. I haven’t been in a firefight and spent my time as service and support but what I know is that there are 204 jobs in the Army and 203 of them support the Infantry. Those 203 other jobs will only fire an M16 on 3-round burst at the end of range day when they need to burn up ammo to avoid the turn in fiasco.
My point is these ‘select fire’ and ‘weapon of war’ terminology digs are vapid. When someone asks me if I consider my AR15s weapons of war, my answer is that I would be extremely comfortable taking my AR15s to war without select fire and would actually prefer it to the abused issue weapons I have carried.
Then I expound on that answer that AR15s are the most effective combat weapon available for me to purchase. In a situation of equal tactical footing, a platoon of guys carrying 5 round bolt action rifles will suffer against a platoon of guys carrying AR15s.
Then the third complaint with the snark about “its not an assault weapon” is that, in one hand we say “features like pistol grips don’t define the weapon. There is no definition of assault rifle. What is it?” and in the other hand we have this snark about select fire?? Like that is the definition?
1) the AR15 without select fire is used in the exact same way as the majority of M16s and M4s issued to personnel overseas…on semi-auto. That makes the AR15 the most effective combat weapon available to purchase in the US.
2) Of course its a weapon of war. It’s effectiveness in that role, even on semi, is the exact reason many people buy them.
3) Do I need an AR15? In my state, 5.56/223 is too small to hunt deer with and I don’t hunt coyotes…so no, for hunting and everyday it is completely useless to me.
So I do I really need one? Not yet, I reply.
Czer says: If 5.56 is too small to hunt deer with, and the weapon is not capable of select fire, I’d say that while it can certainly be used in war, it is expressly not designed for “modern” combat. A serious modern battlefield long gun, aside from a specialized sniper rifle, will have some kind of multishot capability, be it burst or full auto. I think it’s moot anyway. If “weapons of war” are not allowed, then basically every gun is outlawed. No revolvers (many wars), no M1 carbines (at least 3 semi-modern wars), no 1911’s (literally designed for war and used in all the big ones of the 20th Century), etc etc.
I think the important thing is to get the Left to tie itself in knots about definitions until it becomes clear that they know nothing about firearms. Show Congress a slideshow and get them declare that a decked-out, sporty Ruger .22 is a weapon of war, then point out that it’s just a dressed-up .22 rimfire. Then show them a bare bones Mini 14 Ranch rifle and ask them about that one – when they say no, point out that it’s a much beefier gun than the other one. At some point, it’ll become clear that what the Left wants is everyone (but criminals and their own bodyguards) armed with – at most – Winchester lever guns and Single-Action Army type weapons, or little .38 snubnose bullshit cap guns. There’s a lot of new Glock, S&W, and Springfield owners who won’t like being told their 15 or 18 round semi-auto handguns and 30 round SAINT AR-15s are suddenly illegal. They need to be shown the reality of what the Left is trying to do.
Finally, how do you know you don’t need an AR-15? Because you have no interest in hunting coyotes? And when will you know whether or not the need exists?
What will you do if when you need one, you cannot get one?
thesgm says: Well, you kinda missed the point.
The 5.56 is a round designed to kill and wound people…not deer. The United States is not a signatory to the Hague convention which precludes the use of expanding ammunition but the US still follows the guidance of that convention. The wounds caused by hollow points were simply too horrific for late 19th century governments.
With soft tipped or hollow point ammo, the 5.56 is a great round for hunting or war.
But discussing its viability for hunting was not my point. My point was that I own 2 of them and have no current need for them. My conclusion “So I do I really need one? Not yet, I reply.” explains my complaint with the comment “AR15s are not weapons of war. AR15s are not assault rifles.”
They absolutely are and that is the expressed reason i have two. There is not a more capable rifle against man sized targets and that any member of the family can use for sale in the US.
I want people who support the 2A to be honest. Yes, of course, the AR15 is a weapon of war…select fire or not. And, no, I don’t need one with the implication being “not yet.”
But the two arguments that 2A supporters make that conflict a la “doublethink” is that 1) AR15s are not weapons of war and 2) but I need my AR 15 to restrain tyrannical government. You cannot say both then accuse Democrats of talking out both sides of their mouths.
It is our “you don’t need guns…you can call the police!” and “defund the police!!” conflicting beliefs.
We need to stop that. We need to own it. “Yes, it is a weapon of war and I expressly bought it for that reason. If Government acts right, I won’t ever need it.”
So drop the semantics crap about “select fire” and “Its not even an assault weapon.”
Say it out loud to the liberals. “It is a weapon of war and I am gonna keep it for no reason other than you want to take it away from me. And when you try, I will shoot you 2 times, right between the nipples.”
Hate_me says: SGM,
You raise a valid point, but exhibit similar issues in your comment.
You imply that “weapons of war” are the same as “assault weapons,” yet define (indirectly) only the first term. I would posit that “weapons of war” is an extremely broad category of weapons used in the conduct of war/combat, ranging from slings and atlatls to dogs and horses to JDAMs and computers, while “assault weapons” are a sub-category of such weapons specifically designed or implemented for the purpose of assaulting an objective. An onager, for instance, would be a type of assault weapon while caltrops, being purely defensive in design, would not.
Additionally, you are factually incorrect in your allusion that the only difference between an M16/M4 and a civilian AR-15 is the selective fire option.
Finally, you illustrate hyperbole when you state that 203 of 204 MOSs all support the infantry or that infantry is the only branch likely to fire their weapons in anger (I assume this is hyperbole, but it may be ignorance). There is more than one infantry MOS. Also, there are several other combat arms specialties and many specific MOSs within the Army Special Operations community that have seen plenty of combat on their own. You could argue that every MOS functions in support of infantry, but this is as dated and banal a generalization as the idea of “every man a rifleman.” Many of those MOSs, as well as those in support fields, have engaged enemies in theatres in which we have no standing infantry force or mission.
I imagine we are more in agreement on gun rights than not, but you invoked Skitt’s Law – it seemed only fair. I also realize I just placed a target on my back for any grammar-Nazis out there.
Hate_me says: By onager, I was referring to the Roman siege engine – but I wouldn’t be surprised if the wild ass has been employed during an assault at some point in history…. a tactical stampede, perhaps?
the sgm says: Oh Good Lord. You are fact checking an old Army Joke? That is, in fact, a joke that originated in the infantry. They are proud of being 11B. That is why they made the joke. Maybe you noticed when you weren’t reading my post correctly that I do, in fact, realize that in wars where there are no lines…every is on the front line. And I know this as a Service and Support with a tours in Iraq and Afghanstan.
Unbelievable. And…when did Caltrops become firearms? My comment was, “every type of firearm has been used as an assault weapon.” Maybe Skitt can let us know when Caltrops go the big promotion.
So I have 2 ARs. One is milspec and exactly like an M4 save for select fire. Pinned, staked, chromed lined barrel, hammer forged.2 MOA…most its parts are made by the same people who make the Army Colts…
The other is all that milspec goodness as well except that it has a stainless barrel. Which just means it will be more accurate but the barrel will burn out faster.
Please, load me up with your knowledge of super special tech that only the Army has.
The point of my comment is that AR15s are weapons of war so shut up with the select fire nonsense. All arguing this semantic and definitional BS does is say, “hey liberals, we agree that weapons of war are a bad thing so we are spinning around trying to define them not to be so you won’t take them from me.”
I think that is a pussy move. Own it. They are weapons of war and I bought mine for that reason alone. And when I need them, I will have them and plenty of hollow point ammo to give it that slap the Army is missing.
Hate_me says: SGM,
Wow, you read a lot more into my comment than was there.
I was pointing out legitimate errors in your comment, that was it. No offense was intended.
As far as the drivel you just replied with – no, that is not a joke that started with the infantry. It is a legitimate adage from millennia of warfare culminating in Napoleonic warfare. Some soldiers may have adopted it as a joke at some point or other (I’ve never heard it phrased like that, in my career – but definitely stuff in a similar vein), but it doesn’t originate with such. Regardless, it is still hyperbole in the manner in which you applied it.
Additionally, no one really cares if you’ve served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, it is completely irrelevant to the discussion (and hardly unique among the experiences in this crowd), as is the nature of your service.
I mentioned caltrops as an example of a “weapon of war” that is not an “assault weapon,” directly supporting my argument that the two concepts are not interchangeable. There are certainly firearms that would fit (most varmint weapons, for one example, starter pistols for another), but they didn’t seem like the best comparison to an onager.
I highly doubt (don’t believe for a second) that your milspec AR is exactly like an M16 variant, minus the select fire. What is the rifling? What charge is the chamber designed to handle? There is much more difference between the weapons than you seem to realize. That’s like arguing an M24 is the same as a Remington 700 – yes, they are more similar than different, and one is based off the other, but they are NOT the same rifle.
Incidentally, the AR-10 is great for deer.
You continue to correlate “weapons of war” with “assault weapons,” and continue to sound like someone who knows a little something about a very nuanced subject and assumes expertise.
If you actually read what I wrote, I acknowledged that your point was legitimate. Dissembling is a poor tactic in debate, and something the other side is legitimately called out for. I put in question the argument you used to support your point.
It is flawed, in several ways, and you’ve done nothing in response beyond take offense.
Hate_me says: In hindsight, starter pistols are a bad example (though they have been used for purposes of training for war – and are recognized as firearms by all fifty states, there is strong argument that they are not weapons of war). Certain field-expedient firearms are a better example (with very notable exceptions), as are various perimeter security devices utilizing standard ammo/weapons.
thesgm says: I didn’t get far into this reply.
“As far as the drivel you just replied with – no, that is not a joke that started with the infantry. It is a legitimate adage from millennia of warfare culminating in Napoleonic warfare.”
Is that a fact? Napoleon’s Army had 204 MOSs also? What a weird coincidence.
thesgm says: The AR10 is a completely different caliber but it would be illegal to use military ammo to hunt deer with.
Dude, I mentioned my service for a specific reason…not to get some accolades from online knuckleheads…but to say, in my 28 years of experience I used the select fire on my M16 exactly one time and that was to just burn up ammo. Period. The point is that without select fire, it is functionally equivalent to how the M4/16 is used the majority of the time. Its a simple concept.
And as stated, one of my ARs is exactly the same as an M4 minus the select fire. I know the specs required… I bought it for that exact reason. The second one is exactly the same as an M4 except for the stainless barrel and select fire. I bought them so they would be compatible with military weapons in terms of ammo and spare parts. They have the same 1:7 twist optimized for the M855 ball ammo. You should drop that point.
And I take offense because you missed a very simple point.
You can’t say it is not a weapon of war but that you bought it to contain a tyrannical government.
I think arguing the semantics is stupid and your argument is not disabusing me of that belief.
Hate_me says: The AR-10 also fires the civilian .308 Winchester, as do your AR-15s (even if effectively M-16s, which I still don’t buy) fire the civilian .223 Remington.
If you can’t hunt with your rifles due to their ability to fire military rounds, then your true obstacle is nothing but your own ignorance. I imagine this is a recurring problem.
Hate_me says: Also, I’m standing on your grass.
thesgm says: Hyperbole? You are fact checking an old, time-honored Army infantry joke? Gimme a break, dude. There is ONE infantry MOS…11B. There is an infantry branch that contains other MOS but when people who have served say “infantry” we are referring to 11B…not cav scouts, not indirect fire guys…11B.
The left uses 2 terms to disqualify AR15s: “weapons of war” and “assault weapons.” And yes, weapons of war spans a great deal of territory from Aircraft Carriers to bayonets. But we aren’t talking about those in this context…in this context we are talking about personal firearms. When did CALTROPS get the big promotion to “firearm?”
So you completely missed my point and instead went for some gotchas…
Let me tell you, when you argue the semantics of “weapons of war” and “assault weapons”, you concede the liberals’ point that regular people shouldn’t own these types of weapons.
There are a bunch of points that you missed.1) is that the majority of the military never takes their M16 or M4 off semi. So technically, an AR15 is functionally equivalent to the vast majority of how the military uses the M4 or M16. Select fire has very limited utility.
So to say an AR15 isn’t a weapon of war only because it lacks select fire is setting yourself up for losing the argument.
2) there is no definition of assault weapon. You have one and Bill Clinton has another. My point, if I have to join a militia, the best weapon available to me is the practically identical to an M4 AR15. I would be confident using my AR15 as an assault weapon in a militia…or in Iraq…or in Afghanistan. Without select fire, it is a competent weapon to use in a battle.
3) “Doublethink” def: “the acceptance of or mental capacity to accept contrary opinions or beliefs at the same time, especially as a result of political indoctrination.”
This ties the whole thing together…You cannot say on the one hand that an AR15 is not an assault weapon and not a weapon of war then say on the other hand that you need an AR15 as a check against tyrannical government because your intent for purchasing the AR15 was to use it as a weapon of war or assault rifle should the need arise. That is doublethink.
So when asked I say “yes. Americans should have access to weapons to war so we can participate in militia activities according to the plain language of the 2A.”
And no, that doesn’t mean that I think I should be able to buy a M2, M249, or M240B. Those are crew served weapons; one 11B gets the weapon, one 11B carries the spare barrel, one 11B carries the ammo, and for the M2 another 11B carries the tripod. if I were to argue that I should be allowed to own one of these weapons, then I concede that the 2A is a group right and the liberals win the “the 2A applies to the National Guard only” argument.
So just own it. “Yes, an AR15 is an assault rifle. Yes, an AR15 is a weapon of war. And there isn’t a thing wrong with that. Just because I don’t need it today doesn’t mean I won’t need it tomorrow. And the Second Amendment secures my right to prepare for that tomorrow.”
Hate_me says: Your reading comprehension skills are a credit to the NCO Corps. Kindly, try to objectively read what I wrote and set aside the emotions.
Your understanding of warfighting leaves a lot to be desired. Also, I never once said Americans shouldn’t be allowed to own “weapons of war,” or “assault weapons.” I’ve got no issue with a private citizen owning an aircraft carrier.
I’ve actually agreed with your argument that that sort of argument is flawed – as flawed, I’m sure, as the amount of academic rigor you obviously faced at the (I assume, DL) SMA.
Defining terms is key to any real debate.
Hate_me says: I’m still standing on your grass. Only now, you’re too concerned with whether I’m standing on your grass or I’m just standing on the soles of boots that are on your grass – which I’m pretty sure has been neither mowed nor raked of goose shit.
SGM, I genuinely hope you appreciate how little you actually know about war.
That, or I pity your enlisted – they rate better leadership.
Skillyboo says: It’s not the criminals they’re concerned with. They can keep on keeping on killing one another. What scares the useless turd politicians is legal gun owners reaching their limit of how much Washington can get away with. I believe the reason democrats continue to purge the military of its warrior class and replacing them with desk jockeys and transgenders and others of the effete class is they will have no qualms turning their weapons on American citizens who their masters identity as the enemy.
Scott says: Hmm, it’s almost as if they want to take away our guns because they plan on doing something that might make us want to shoot them…
Douglas Robert Loss says: Almost?
Andrew Asnip says: Just as an FYI, the Supreme Court decided in US v. Miller that Weapons of War ARE protected under the 2nd amendment. And courts have been tippy-toeing around that decision ever since, or just flat ignoring it. Our forefathers understood that the 2nd amendment was a bulwark against a repressive government as much as it was against external enemies. Our military take an oath to protect the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. So do our congress-critters.
Bruce M Metcalf says: From Indiana? https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/29/atf-majority-guns-recovered-illinois/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/the-chicago-gun-myth/
Bucky says: The real question is will the Democrat Party House lemmings follow Beijing Biden over the cliff on this without regards to their own re-elections in 2022?
Who killed Ashli Babbitt?
Scott says: There is no cliff when you control the vote counting…
24 Comments