When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Civilians were using semiautos for decades before it caught on in military use. The bolt action was the dominant military rifle design until after wwi. Militaries rejected semiauto handguns for decades in favor of revolvers due to reliability concerns. Oh right, all of the civilian technologies he listed are actually military technologies and vice versa.
Civilians were using semiautos for decades before it caught on in military use. The bolt action was the dominant military rifle design until after wwi. Militaries rejected semiauto handguns for decades in favor of revolvers due to reliability concerns. Oh right, all of the civilian technologies he listed are actually military technologies and vice versa.
1911 was not the first handgun trial that featured semiautos. Several designs from the 1880s were tried and rejected in 1900 iirc. Meanwhile the military was using revolvers since some time in the 1860s.
Was in Cody, WY last week, and spent a day at the Buffalo Bill Center of the West. The sign on the door was refreshing compared to usual lefty anti-gun freak-out signage at most museums in big cities...
At least they are gaining a proper understanding of guns. For the past five years of AR-15 hysteria, I was thinking that you could do exactly the same thing with a Glock handgun, at least at close range. Heck my local gun store sells 50 round drum magazines that fit a Model 26.
In other words... "We support the 2A, BUT you don't need an AR15 to hunt deer or defend your family, and it doesn't fit in a nightstands, and the gov't has Apache helicopters you can't win against. but don't forget that at our core, we support the 2A and resoundingly reject the idea that we're anti-gun in any way... oh yeah, and the cops can continue to have anything they want."
Personally, I think the number of actual "assault rifles" in circulation is grossly underestimated (I just bought 4 more today because of sales). I see 15-20 million thrown around a lot... gut tells me it's probably double.
I'll also point out that other than an out-of-service Facebook page, the Falmouth Anti-Gun Coalition doesn't exist. I'm also sure it's just coincident that one Richard Duby in South Falmouth has a Subaru Outback registered in his name(didn't see that coming).
In any event... tiny little bites like this one aren't an accident. The bulk of all the money funding anti-gun groups comes from one guy... they have almost no grass-roots support at all. Every event I've ever been to has the same 5 or 6 people telling the same story with the same rhetoric and getting all the airtime in the local media. However, they are incredibly well-organized and have a VERY long-term strategy. In the meantime, the NRA is destroying itself from within.
In the meantime, the NRA is destroying itself from within.
The whole first half* of the Bill of Rights is at grave risk at present. What distresses me most is that I assume the founders must have feared that it would come under attack by powers of government, either foreign or domestic, and not by We the People ourselves**.
* = A broad generalization. It might be fairer to day the whole thing, apart from the 3rd, is under extreme duress. But that doesn't roll off the tongue quite so easily.
** = Yes, I read you with regard to "the same 5 or 6 people telling the same story." But visit any major city, and take a random poll of the population under the age of 40, if you believe that those few voices have not become the leaders of the Choir of Public Opinion.
In other words... "We support the 2A, BUT you don't need an AR15 to hunt deer or defend your family, and it doesn't fit in a nightstands, and the gov't has Apache helicopters you can't win against. but don't forget that at our core, we support the 2A and resoundingly reject the idea that we're anti-gun in any way... oh yeah, and the cops can continue to have anything they want."
Personally, I think the number of actual "assault rifles" in circulation is grossly underestimated (I just bought 4 more today because of sales). I see 15-20 million thrown around a lot... gut tells me it's probably double.
I'll also point out that other than an out-of-service Facebook page, the Falmouth Anti-Gun Coalition doesn't exist. I'm also sure it's just coincident that one Richard Duby in South Falmouth has a Subaru Outback registered in his name(didn't see that coming).
In any event... tiny little bites like this one aren't an accident. The bulk of all the money funding anti-gun groups comes from one guy... they have almost no grass-roots support at all. Every event I've ever been to has the same 5 or 6 people telling the same story with the same rhetoric and getting all the airtime in the local media. However, they are incredibly well-organized and have a VERY long-term strategy. In the meantime, the NRA is destroying itself from within.
I tend to look at political preferences as a 2x2 grid. On the X axis you have the spectrum of government involvement (libertarian --> authoritarian), on the Y axis you have the spectrum of social preferences (conservative --> liberal). You could even make it a 2x2x2 grid and add a Z axis of economic preferences (capitalist --> socialist).
What we get in the media, and thus from our politicians, is libertarian/conservative/capitalist vs. authoritarian/liberal/socialist. This is bullshit, because I think most thoughtful people don't fall neatly into those groups. I myself lean libertarian/liberal/capitalist. So on the subject of guns, I tend to agree with the guy that wrote that article. I think citizens in good standing should have the right to own guns at will. I think there should be sensible gun laws and effective enforcement of those laws. I think gun owners an manufacturers should be exposed to liability from their choices. I think there are certain weapons that are too destructive and should be off-limits to private citizens, but that boundary should be defined by rational evidence and not mob hysteria (a.k.a. ban AR-15's).
The "liberals want to ban all guns" narrative is as reductive as the "white racists want to kill our kids with bazookas" narrative.
The "liberals want to ban all guns" narrative is as reductive as the "white racists want to kill our kids with bazookas" narrative.
That's very true. But it's very easy to package and sell, both in the context of political campaigns* and in the context of broadcast news stories.
* = and it actually works both ways. If you're appealing to a right-leaning audience, you say "If we allow [candidate x] to be elected, [he / she] will take away your guns!" whereas if you are appealing to a left-leaning audience, you say "If we allow [candidate y] to be elected, then ruthless killers like the one at [name of most recent mass-shooting] will continue to have access to guns!"
It takes time and effort to process complicated ideas, which is why Binary extremism is so popular. For instance, your hypothetical three-axis grid does not account for cat-ownership. Would you not agree that "cat-liking" vs. "cat-hating" is a vastly more important metric than "capitalism" vs. "socialism?"
I'd posit that the majority of voters in the US are motivated more by fear than by idealism. It's less about the good things that will happen if your candidate is elected than about the bad, scary things that will happen if the other candidate wins. And that makes perfect sense, from a completely objective point of view. It's easy to make people hateful and afraid- all you have to do is avoid subtlety and nuance. If everything is a strictly binary problem, then opinions and emotions will naturally drift towards the extreme.
Now, granted, appealing to extremes obviously overlooks some voters. People like Kim Kelly, the gun-totin' left-wing anarchist. But then, if you've actually gone to the trouble of formulating a sociopolitical ideology which does not neatly conform to one of a few simple stereotypes, then you're probably not the sort of person who is going to immediately fall into line behind whoever is carrying the "correct" flag at the next general election anyway. People who think critically about important issues simply don't matter from the point of view of campaign managers, for the same reason that people who appear open-minded and intelligent are kryptonite to trial lawyers during jury selection. They're just too damn unpredictable.
FOX News in no way pushes "a narrative" of liberals hating guns... the vast majority of liberal politicians are outright and vocallly hostile towards gun and gun owners, and encourage gun-hating in their constituency. Among the 2020 Democratic Candidates, it's an actual race to the bottom to see who's supporters actually hate guns more. FOX doesn't have to "push" anything.
The "gun-liking" extreme far left is a miniscule fraction of all liberals and it's a huge stretch to say "...but some liberals like guns" when speaking about those individuals and thinking it will ever count politically.
It's also dead wrong to say your every-day Constitution loving Republican doesn't want anarchists or liberals of whatever flavor to have guns... that's total bullshit. We can all agree to disagree in America. I do believe that "win stupid games, get stupid prizes" is completely lost on people who go to political rallies of far leaning groups on either side.
I do believe that "win stupid games, get stupid prizes" is completely lost on people who go to political rallies of far leaning groups on either side.
Over the past couple of years, I have become ashamed to see a good friend of mine, someone I've known since high school and who is a very successful corporate attorney, husband and father, posting photos of himself and his kin participating in precisely such events as you describe, signs in hand.
06-10-2019, 10:33 AM
0
