Banning AR-15s Means Banning All Rifles

It’s been about 2 weeks since the heinous mass murder at the school in Parkland, Florida.  It’s about an hour away from where I live and only a few minutes from where my son played hockey 2 years ago.

I’m staying out of it.

I have intentionally and uncharacteristically steered clear of any gun “debates” this time around.  Over the many years I’ve advocated firearms education and basing decisions on facts, I’ve come to realize that it almost always falls on deaf ears.  It’s a waste of time.  Innocent ignorance is one thing.  Intractable and willful ignorance is quite another.  So, I thought I’d stay out of it this time.  Until now.

I can no longer remain silent.  The volume of DISinformation being bandied as “facts” by the media and agenda-driven activists and politicians is staggering.  More so now than ever before.  The hysteria is at a fevered pitch.  My enthusiasm to educate and enlighten was difficult to repress.  I held out as long as I could!  😀

I remained silent for the past couple of weeks, as I “lurked” on social media threads, observing the understandable anger and desire to “do SOMEthing.”  But, the incredibly naive, ignorant, and flatly deceitful claims being made often caused my lip to bleed from biting it so hard!  😉

I’ve written about the AR-15 before:  Why I Need an AR-15.

Not gonna do it.  Not gonna go there.  Wouldn’t be prudent.

(Sorry… channeling George Bush for a moment.)  First, I am not going to tolerate nor answer to any implications of guilt, merely because I’m a gun owner.  I didn’t do it.  100 million gun owners didn’t do it.  The NRA’s five million members didn’t do it.  One evil, disturbed person did it.  I will also not get into the dozens of warnings or which agencies failed to act in ways that might have prevented the psychopath from perpetrating this heinous crime.  Res ipsa loquitur – It speaks for itself.

We must do SOMEthing!  We must ban someTHING!

While the reflexive compulsion to do “SOMEthing” is strong when emotions are running high, it is prudent to think things through.  It’s easy to blame the tool used in the crime.  But, arguably, the factors that lead to crimes of this magnitude are far more complex.  Attempting to prevent access to a single tool as the primary preventive measure is a fool’s errand.

There has been (again) a call to “ban the AR-15.”  The “facts” about the AR-15 rifle have been GROSSLY distorted by the public on social media, the press, and politicians.  Much of it would be truly comical to those of us with actual knowledge about firearms, if it wasn’t proffered with such a serious tone and misguided belief in its veracity.  It’s as if the AR-15 is a magical gun.

Woa-ho-ho, It’s magic. You know. Never believe it’s not so.
(Hat tip to the 70s band, Pilot)

This is real, not a photoshop. I grabbed this image directly from the USA Today Twitter feed.

What is being promulgated as “facts” about the AR-15 lately is abject nonsense.  Literally, nonsense.  It’s completely fabricated shit that is seemingly extracted from cartoons, movies, and video games.

Remember, USA Today recently, and rather “authoritatively,” reported that one of the available accessories for the AR-15 was a “chainsaw bayonet.”  That’s right… a chainsaw mounted as a bayonet on an AR-15!  Ummmm…. yeah… that’s from a VIDEO GAME, ya morons!  It’s not real!  Did they retract the claim or report?  NOPE!

Coffee Talk

If we are going to have the “conversation” that is so often demanded by the firearms prohibitionists, then we MUST speak the same language.  We MUST base our “conversation” in FACTS.  If the gun-control crowd wants to have a genuine debate, then their points must be COHERENT.  If we are going to discuss banning or regulating a technology, then NOMENCLATURE MATTERS.

If they rely on urban legend, mythology, and what really amounts to gun gibberish (such as “chainsaw bayonets” and “full semi-auto”), we simply cannot sit down and talk.  If they rely on emotionally-based attacks, we can’t talk.  We won’t talk.  It’s a waste of time and energy.

“This is a ghost gun,” de Leon begins, holding an unloaded rifle in his hands. “This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.”

Who are YOU?  WTF do YOU know?

Who am I to pontificate about this subject?  I have 40+ years of firearms experience (shooting on and off since I was 12 years old).  I am a certified Pistol Instructor.  I am a certified Range Safety Officer.  I have competed with my specialized precision AR-15 at 600 yards and recreationally hit targets out to 1,000 yards with other (higher powered) rifles.  I earned the Expert Pistol Shot Medal in the U.S. Navy.  In early 2013, I was featured in a nationally televised CNBC special, America’s Gun: The Rise of the AR-15.”

My day job may be “just-a-dentist,” but I have a very good foundation of firearms knowledge.

Precision AR-15, competition target shooting at 600 yards.

I don’t claim to know it all.  There are many true experts out there with a deeper knowledge base than mine.  Some of the nation’s leading experts are my friends (who do this for a living), and a part of me hopes I don’t embarrass myself in front of them.

But, I dare suggest I know WAY more than the reporters, politicians, and activists who have never so much as handled a firearm.  Yet, they’re the ones with the “credibility” and who hold sway with the general public.  It’s hard for me to compete with that.  I’ll try anyway.

Here we go… again.

Brevity is not my strong suit, but I’ll try.  This isn’t the first time I’ve written about the AR-15.  See my article:  “Why I Need an AR-15.”  That article is what got the attention of CNBC.

The AR-15 is NOT a special rifle.  There is literally nothing unique about it, as it pertains to function.  A shooter cannot do anything with an AR-15 that he can’t do with virtually any other centerfire semi-auto rifle, including the rifles made out of wood and blued steel.  Some facts about the AR-15 (despite the persistent contrary claims in the media):

  • It has NEVER been issued to any military service.  It is NOT a military rifle.  No matter how many times it’s called a “military weapon” by the press… it’s not.  It never has been and never will be.  IT’S.  JUST.  NOT.
  • It is not a “powerful” round (even though it’s often described as “high powered” in the media) in the context of the spectrum of centerfire rifle cartridges.  In fact, it’s at the weaker end of the spectrum.  It is outlawed in most states for hunting large game, such as deer, because it is too weak.
  • It cannot be fired any faster than any other semi-automatic rifle.

The external cosmetic and ergonomic features of the AR-15 are apparently impressive and frightening to those unfamiliar with firearms.  But, they do nothing to the functionality of the rifle, just as racing stripes and wings don’t turn a street car into a race car.

Here’s why the AR-15 is popular:

  • It’s lightweight.  The use of light alloys and plastic make it light and easy to use by many different shooters.  Wood and steel are heavy.
  • Because the caliber (.223) is relatively weak, the recoil (“kick”) is very mild.  So, it is easier for marksmen and women of all shapes and sizes to fire it comfortably for extended range sessions.  Newton’s 3rd Law (for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction) applies here.  Recoil is directly proportional to the ballistic energy of the ammunition cartridge.  The AR-15 cartridge is relatively weak, contrary to the perpetual mischaracterization of “high power.”
  • The .223 caliber is relatively inexpensive, compared to larger rifle calibers.  Range sessions cost less.  It’s a consistent / accurate ammunition.  Great for target shooting.
  • The modularity of the rifle makes for easy accessorization (if that’s a word).  And, the adjustability of the stock makes it easy to fit a wide range of shooters.  Anyone from an 8 year old girl to a 6’4″ 200-lb man can easily and comfortably enjoy using it at the range.  A standard wood and steel rifle is not adjustable.
  • It’s cool!  It looks cool…. like racing stripes and wings on sports cars.

To be clear… there is nothing FUNCTIONALLY special about the AR-15.  It does the EXACT same thing as all other semi-automatic rifles.  Semi-automatic means that the firearm loads the next available round after firing the previous round.  It requires a separate new pull of the trigger to fire each round.  The only thing “automatic” about it is the loading of the next round.  It is 110 year old technology.  One hundred and ten years old.  Semi-automatic firearms are as ubiquitous as automatic transmissions in cars.  The vast majority of firearms in use today are semi-automatic.  The AR-15, specifically, was introduced in 1959.  It’s been around for 59 years!  It’s older than me!

These rifles fire the same ammunition (.223-cal). The fire at the same rate (semi-automatic, one trigger pull = one bang). They have the same ammo capacity. On top is the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch rifle, which is popular for getting rid of varmints on the farm. Below is the AR-15. They function EXACTLY the same.

So, are semi-automatic rifles generally faster than bolt-action and lever-action rifles?  Generally, yes.  But, with a little practice, a marksman can nearly match the speed with the manually-loaded guns (bolt-action, lever-action, and revolvers).

There are expert marksmen that can fire a lever-action “cowboy-style” rifle as quickly as a semi-automatic rifle.  There are experts that can fire and reload a revolver as quickly as a semi-auto pistol.  <– Links are to videos of each example, if you’re interested.

The AR-15 is not a “full-auto” rifle.

It’s important to make a distinction from FULLY-automatic.  Fully-automatic rifles, also known as machine guns (which ARE used in the military), will automatically load AND fire with a single trigger pull and will continue until the trigger is released or the ammunition is expended.

You don’t want to be shot by any of them.

ALL firearms are potentially lethal.  A single shot to a vital organ can be fatal.  A significant percentage of murders are committed with the tiny / weak .22-LR rimfire caliber (aka “22”).  Incidentally the AR-15 round is technically a “22-caliber.”  Though, it has more powder, so a much higher velocity than a “22.”   There are MANY rifle cartridges that are a larger caliber, heavier, AND as fast, or faster than the AR-15’s .223 round.

Among centerfire rifle cartridges, the AR-15 round (.223) is a the low end of the spectrum.  There are:  .308-cal, 7-mm Remington Mag, .30-06, .300-Winchester Mag, .338-Lapua, and many others.  There are MANY rifle calibers that are considerably more powerful than the .223 AR-15 round.

The VERY common .308-cal rifle round packs about 2.5 times as much ballistic energy as the .223.

On the far right is the common “22” or .22LR, a very small rimfire cartridge. The rest are centerfire rifle cartridges. The 2nd from the right is the 5.56-mm NATO / .223-cal AR-15 cartridge. Continuing to the left is the 7.62×39-mm (AK-47), the .308 Winchester (AR-10 and many, many other rifles), the .300 Win-Mag, and the .50-BMG. These are all commonly available cartridges.

Here’s a chart of the relative muzzle energies of common handgun and rifle cartridges.  Note that the .223 (AR-15 ammo) ranks at the BOTTOM of centerfire rifle cartridges.  Both the photo (above) and chart (below) belie the notion that the AR-15 cartridge is a “high power” round, as has been promulgated by the media, activists, and anti-liberty politicians.  It’s a lie.  Period.

The AR-15 cartridge is the weakest in the spectrum of rifle cartridges.

You’re either for all guns or against all guns.

Firearms are lethal weapons.  All of them… potentially lethal.  Lethality is not subject to gradation.  It is binary.  Whether a bad guy points a single-shot .22 Crickett, a 6-round Smith & Wesson .38-spl snub-nose revolver, a 20-gauge shotgun, a World War 2 era M1 Garand, or an AR-10 at my wife, my son, my daughter, or me, it is a lethal threat (and I will respond accordingly).  It doesn’t matter whether you point a tiny two-shot palm-sized .22-cal Derringer or a .50-cal Barrett rifle at a cop.  The response will be the same (they will shoot you!).  It is a lethal threat, regardless of the firearm.

So, if you are opposed to ownership of an AR-15, and you are intellectually and logically consistent, you MUST oppose private ownership of ALL firearms.  Go ahead.  Admit it!  It’s OK!  At least you’ll be consistent and honest.  I can respect that.  I won’t agree, of course.  But, I’ll at least see that you are logically consistent.

Likewise, and perhaps not surprisingly, I am opposed to the ban of ANY firearm.  That means I believe I have the Right to own ANY kind of firearm, including machine guns… long guns… short guns…. loud guns… quiet guns… big guns… little guns… ugly black plastic guns… pretty, shiny, engraved, wood guns.   As long as I am using them safely and legally, I have a Right to have them.  PERIOD.  (Murder is against the law, by the way, regardless of whether a gun, knife, blunt object, or bare hands are used.)

Stop making sense.

A friend of mine recently moved here from Maryland.  To illustrate the nonsensical approach to regulate and restrict something the legislators and activists obviously know NOTHING about…  In Maryland, my friend cannot buy an AR-15.  They’re effectively banned.  BUT, he CAN buy an AR-10 without any problem.  Never heard of it?  Hmmmm… AR-10 is lower than AR-15 by five points.  It must not be as “dangerous,” eh?   OK, I admit I’m being facetious.

For those who don’t know….  The AR-10 is the exact same rifle design.  EXACT.  The only difference is that the AR-10 fires the .308-caliber cartridge.  It is MUCH more powerful, in terms of “terminal ballistics” than the AR-15’s .223-caliber cartridge.  It also has a much longer effective range.  It’s not as popular, because it has a much heavier recoil and the ammunition costs twice as much.

You CAN make this stuff up!

Well… THEY can make this stuff up, apparently.  This week, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell suggested that a defense against a person with an AR-15 could not be successfully mounted with a pistol, because “A bullet fired from an AR-15 travels 3x faster than one from a handgun.”  This left any and all people knowledgeable about firearms shaking their heads.  Does he think it’s a “bullet race” like in the cartoons?  Holy crap.

Senator Diane Feinstein later borrowed from Rolling Stone magazine, tweeting: A handgun [wound] is simply a stabbing with a bullet. It goes in like a nail.” With the high-velocity rounds of the AR-15, “it’s as if you shot somebody with a Coke can.”  What is she smoking?

These were arguments against anyone (citizens, teachers, faculty, staff, parents, etc) attempting self-defense with a handgun against a bad guy with an AR-15.  Because the “bullets are too slow.”  Whiskey.  Tango.  Foxtrot??  This is utter nonsense.

By the way, ummmm… yeah… THIS:  Texas shooting:  Officer with pistol stops TWO AK-47 rifle-wielding terrorists.

Let’s be honest here.

So, if those who are calling for a ban of the AR-15 or the mythical “assault weapon” (no such device) are intellectually honest and factually consistent, they MUST call for the ban of ALL rifles.  Why?  Because they ARE ALL THE SAME!  They simply are.  They all do the same exact thing.  This, of course, contradicts the perennial condescending consolation of the activists and politicians, “Nobody is taking all your guns.”

If your sincere concern is with the “lethality” of certain weapons, then logically, you MUST call for the banning of ALL of them.  Let’s be honest with each other.  Because, they are all the same.  Functionally, virtually all rifles are the same.  I’m telling you, as a “gun guy,” there is nothing I can do with the AR-15 that I can’t do with almost any other rifle.

If you think you can make the world “safer” by banning a specific gun or a specific style of firearm… YOU.  ARE.  KIDDING.  YOURSELVES.  Worse… I submit you’re actually making the world less safe, as you rest easy with a false sense of security and accomplishment.  There is ALWAYS a way around “bans” of inanimate objects.  How’s that ban on recreational opioids working for us?

While the notion of legislating away all danger… all the crazy people and events… all criminal behavior… is laughable on its face, we CAN intelligently consider the factors we may be able to observe and then mitigate the incidence of SOME of these disasters.  Being distracted with the mythical “assault weapon” and the magical AR-15 is a waste of our time and resources.

Instead of addressing the real issues, we seem to be ignoring them.  It’s easier to blame the AR-15.  It’s easier to blame the NRA.  It’s easier to blame the millions of law-abiding gun owners.  Getting to the bottom of the real problem is hard work.  I will not pretend to have all the answers on how to deal with sociopaths, and it’s not the scope of this article.

That’s it.  That’s all I’ve got for now.  I am not here to start or finish any “gun debates.”  Everything I’ve said here about the AR-15 and guns is verifiably true.  The media, activists, and politicians are misleading the public.  Repeating an untruth doesn’t make it true.  Not even when it comes from journalists, politicians, or celebrities.

I will entertain any sincere questions.  But, again… I will not engage in trading barbs or volleys of emotionally-tinged hyperbole.  Rhetorical questions will be ignored.  Nor will I tolerate personal attacks.  My sincerest desire here is to shed some factual light on the subject of firearms, and in this case, the AR-15.

Edit to add (3/3/18): 

Congress knows.

So, here we go.  The gun-grabbers in Congress KNOW what I have stipulated here.  They can’t just ban AR-15s.  They have to ban ALL semi-auto guns (which is most guns).   Accordingly, the proposed bill would effectively ban ALL semi-auto guns.  Again… these are the guns that have been in common use for 110 years.  This is the logical progression of the definition of  the mythical “Assault weapons,” by expanding it to include ALL guns.  Read the text of the bill yourself:   H.R.5087 – Assault Weapons Ban of 2018
(This bill was introduced on February 26, 2018, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted.  But, it goes to show the intent of the anti-liberty faction of government – which is to try to effectively ban all firearms.)

Digiprove sealCopyright protected by Digiprove © 2018-2020 The Dental Warrior®
This entry was posted in Current Events, Editor's Favorites, Personal Security & Safety and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Banning AR-15s Means Banning All Rifles

  1. Mike,

    Around me, I have heard more talk about raising the minimum age for buying a gun, some specifically targeting the AR-15, more than I have heard about banning the AR-15. Now I realize the folly of raising it for the AR-15 alone. But considering that adolescents and even young adults—some neuroscience suggests up to the age of 25–have not fully developed their capacity to reason and discern, they are suggesting that purchasing firearms at that age should be restricted or banned.

    I’d be interested in your reasoned thoughts on that idea.

    • The Dental Warrior says:

      Well… first… targeting the AR-15, alone, demonstrates an abject lack of firearms knowledge. Again… the AR-15 is NOT special. It is NOT different than any other semi-auto rifle. There are dozens upon dozens of other rifle models that ALL function EXACTLY the same as the AR-15. The AR-10, the FS2000, the FN SCAR, the PS90, the Mini-14, the Marlin Model 60, the M1 Garand, the Browning BAR, the Ruger 10/22, and on and on and on. MOST firearms in use today are semi-automatic. The AR-15’s “unique” features are cosmetic and ergonomic (which many other rifles have, as well). They’re ALL THE SAME.

      The #1 killer of teens is car crashes. One of the most popular cars on the road is the Honda Accord. Treating the AR-15 differently makes as much sense as banning Honda Accords for drivers under 25 years old.

      Secondly… the age. If my son is old enough to vote, old enough to be drafted into military service, old enough to operate and maintain ACTUAL weapons of war… in a war… Then I believe he is old enough to enjoy ALL of his Constitutional Rights and the same Liberties as ANY other adult in the U.S.A. By the way, my son fired his first shots at age 8. 🙂 So, my point is that I believe in consistency. If it’s determined that a person isn’t to be trusted with a firearm until age 25, then raise the age of “adulthood” for EVERYTHING else, as well.

  2. Ken says:

    Excellent article again Mike. So tired of reading so00000 many articles in the “press” that misuse the term AR-15 calling it an “assault rifle” and/or automatic rifle.

    If the left’s fairy godmother came around tomorrow and banned the AR-15 do these people really believe such crimes are going to cease? No, another weapon will simply be used. Let’s even take it a step further and the fairy godmother bans all guns. Do these people on the left really think criminals are going to suddenly abide by the law and turn in their guns? No, of course they won’t only law abiding citizens will. The criminals will still have guns.

    Until we as a society really start to look at ourselves and examine why these kids are turning like this then no ban on any gun is going to stop more of these from happening. Guns have been around for a long long time yet there were no mass school shootings like this until recent times. Why? That is the question we must look into.

    I’d like to share this article if I may?

  3. Greg S says:

    Your Honda Accord analogy does not ring true. A car’s MAIN purpose is transportation. A gun has 2 functions (sport & killing). The question is how do we protect the rights of the sportsman (like you), but limit or avoid gun use for killing. If guns ONLY function were killing then society would have already banned it as it has already banned nuclear bombs and chemical weapons. Some say possessing nuclear bombs and chemical weapons can act as a deterrent to aggression from hostile forces. Some make the same argument for the private ownership of guns. (Protecting your own home). IMHO, I feel the use of guns, nuclear and chemical weapons as deterrents does NOT outweigh the danger they present to society. IN A PERFECT WORLD, I would love to ban ALL of them. I have lived my whole life without owning a gun, and I have always felt perfectly safe (and I live and work in Chicago). Carrying a concealed weapons, would NOT make me feel any safer. Surely there must be some way to protect sportsmen like you, but still restrict those who only want to use guns for killing. A 3 day waiting period and universal background checks does not sound like an outrageous request to me. A total ban goes too far, but passing no restrictions just doesn’t go far enough. (P.S. yes I know there already are SOME restrictions, but surely you realize that buying a gun at a gun show is far too easy)

    • The Dental Warrior says:

      It wasn’t a comparison of cars to guns. It was a comparison of equally stupid ideas for the same reason. It was a comparison of logic, or the lack thereof. The most popular car isn’t the cause of teens crashing and dying. Nor is the most popular rifle the cause for heinous crimes. Never mind that rifles make up 4% of murders. That’s ALL rifles. AR-15s are a VERY small subset of that 4%.

      IMHO, I feel the use of guns, nuclear and chemical weapons as deterrents does NOT outweigh the danger they present to society.

      But, speaking of logical fallacies…. Straw Man and False Dichotomy. 🙂

      I have lived my whole life without owning a gun, and I have always felt perfectly safe (and I live and work in Chicago). Carrying a concealed weapons, would NOT make me feel any safer.

      You live in Chiraq? 😉 One of the most murderous cities in the U.S. You FEEL safe. Good on ya, mate. You live your life. I’m perfectly fine with that. But, I will not accept the imposition of YOUR FEELINGS to restrict how I live MY life.

      . Surely there must be some way to protect sportsmen like you,

      I don’t think of myself as a “sportsman.” I own a gun for many reasons… For ALL the reasons. That’s the cool thing about guns. They can be used for sport (target and competition). They can be used just for fun. They can be used to put food on the table. They can be used to defend self and family. And, finally, they are the bulwark against tyranny. Gun ownership is quintessentially American. An armed person is a citizen. A disarmed person is a subject.

      I should add, and I want to be VERY clear. I do NOT want your version of “protection.” I have NO desire to become a dependent or SUBJECT who hopes someone ELSE will save my ass when the SHTF. I won’t turn down HELP. But, I cannot imagine a life that depends on someone else for my very survival.

      Thomas Jefferson said, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.”

      The notion of me depending on your definition of “protection” is anathema to my very existence. I cannot imagine a more horrible situation than to be dependent on the state for my very survival. I understand that you could not conceive otherwise. We are diametrically opposite. Again… I’m OK with your CHOICE to not be armed. Likewise, I insist you be “OK” with MY choice. See how that works? That’s that “tolerance” you progressives incessantly carp about (but do not practice).

      yes I know there already are SOME restrictions, but surely you realize that buying a gun at a gun show is far too easy

      That’s a negative, Ghostrider. This is a patently false canard. You are repeating what you hear. Have you been to a gun show? Have you purchased a firearm there? The vast, vast majority of firearms purchases at gun shows are through licensed dealers, requiring background checks. I’d surmise at least 99% are through licensed dealers. There is nothing about special about a gun show, as it pertains to the odd private sale. That same private sale can also legally happen over your kitchen table or in a Burger King parking lot.

      By the way… The main and only purpose of a firearm is to launch a projectile downrange. Where it is aimed, is up to the user and his intent.

  4. Derek says:

    Hi Mike.
    Thanks for the article and I appreciate your setting us straight on the facts. I can’t argue at all that the AR-15 is any different than any other semi-automatic rifle besides looking “military scary”. My questions is about clip size. Could not the maximum amount of ammunition a rifle could carry be limited to five or six bullets and thus making it more difficult to fire a high number of rounds in a short time?

    • The Dental Warrior says:

      First… not to be pedantic, but it’s not a “clip.” It’s a magazine, and there is a difference.

      The Columbine and Virginia Tech cases both used low-capacity magazines. Also, the Isla Vista, California shooter had low-capacity 10-round magazines. But, he had a bunch of them. In the case of an offensive-attack mass murder, in which the victims are disarmed “fish in a barrel”… the capacity of the magazine is immaterial. A shooter on the offense can change a magazine quickly, if he is loaded up with multiple magazines, on a MISSION to MURDER. A magazine change takes a split second, literally. Seriously… a practiced shooter can do a mag change in less than a second.

      On the other hand, a person carrying a firearm for DEFENSIVE purposes, is often carrying only the magazine that is loaded in the pistol. One magazine, typically. They aren’t loaded up with multiple magazines. They’re NOT on a “mission.” They are going about their normal day. They are in REACTION mode, if God-forbid, they are forced to face an attacker. So, when it comes to a DEFENSIVE situation, the more rounds in that one magazine the better. The last thing you want to hear, when trying to defend yourself against a meth’ed-up home invader, is silence upon pulling the trigger when you needed one more bang to stop the attack.

      So, I’m opposed to magazine limits for a number of reasons, the first being is that it will only be a disadvantage to a defender. Secondly, if there are ~400 million guns in the U.S., there are probably AT LEAST a few BILLION magazines. At LEAST. They’re out there. Wasting time trying to “ban” them is folly. It’s NOT the implement or tool being used. It’s the CRIMINAL using it. NONE of this stuff is new. Semi-autos have been around for 110 years. Guns have NOT changed, functionally. So, then… it raises the question: What HAS changed?

      • Susan Vadnais says:

        It is really sad that nobody had the foresight to limit the magazine capacity before we sold a billion of high capacity magazines. Your response is to keep going because that is the only way to stay ahead of ourselves. So we are playing a game of trying defend ourselves FROM OURSELVES!

        We can NEVER expect everyone to play fairly or responsibly so why did we not anticipate this happening? Instead we just kept producing high capacity magazines, bump stocks, semi-automatic weapons and handing them out like candy because it is a so-called right to own one, two, 10, ,,, is there any limit (I don’t know). It’s like the nuclear arms race… but this is Americans in a race to arm themselves against themselves.

        I guess I have not thought of a solution, but I really can’t see that arming more citizens is the best answer.

        We have been doing that and so far it has only created more challenges than solutions imho.

        • The Dental Warrior says:

          To be clear… they are NOT “high capacity” magazines. Yes… that’s what the gun-grabbers call them. But, they are actually STANDARD capacity magazines. The STANDARD AR-15 magazine is 30-rounds.

          Pistol magazines are typically in accordance with the size of the pistol grip. So, a Glock Model 17, which is a full-sized pistol accommodates a 17-round magazine. The model number (G17) has nothing to do with the capacity… just a coincidence, in this example. The Glock 19, which is the medium size pistol of the same caliber (9-mm) accommodates a 15-round magazine. That’s just what fits inside the grip. A 10-round magazine, as proposed by the banners, is a REDUCED capacity magazine. The 15 and 17 round magazines are STANDARD.

          This is no “game.” I’m not “defending myself from myself,” and WE are not “defending ourselves from ourselves.” Not at all. That’s a very odd thing to say. I hope to never have to defend myself against an attacking CRIMINAL. The criminals are not “me” or “ourselves.” They are THEM. They are not part of us.

          Fortunately, I have never needed to defend myself with a firearm. So far, my firearms have been used for fun, plinking, target shooting, and competition. I’m not a hunter. My semi-autos with their standard capacity magazines pose no threat to anyone. 100 million other gun owners, just like me, also enjoy their hobby without harming anyone. To impose limitations on 100 million Americans (never minding their Constitutional Rights), because of the criminal actions of very few sociopaths, is irrational and indefensible.

          Instead we just kept producing high capacity magazines, bump stocks, semi-automatic weapons and handing them out like candy because it is a so-called right to own one, two, 10, ,,, is there any limit (I don’t know). It’s like the nuclear arms race… but this is Americans in a race to arm themselves against themselves.

          This is the hyperbole (and Straw Man argument) that prevents an actual conversation. Nobody is “handing out” anything like “candy.” Semi-automatic firearms are nothing new. They are 110-year old technology. There is no way to debate or counter emotionally-laced hyperbole. I prefer to stick with facts. When you repeat and use euphemisms like “high capacity” (when it’s flatly not the case) and “candy” and implying it’s a “nuclear race” to “kill ourselves,” it’s impossible to have a rational discussion.

          • Susan Vadnais says:


            I was referring to Americans (as a group) as “ourselves” as we, as a group have created this country (the good, the bad, and the ugly).

            I would like to revisit this conversation in a few days time. Currently I am on vacation and will be entertaining 37 guests (fellow bikers) in a couple hours.

            Hope to enjoy some great food, friendship without any guns on the premises. Feeling perfectly comfortable not carrying a firearm to our party.

          • The Dental Warrior says:

            I’m glad you feel comfortable not carrying a gun. Really…. I am. Though, I’m not sure why you felt it necessary to make that declaration. 🙂

            I think I can speak for a large majority of gun owners (if not all), when I say, “We are FINE with your CHOICE to not own / carry a gun.” The difference is you are not comfortable with OUR CHOICE. We are asking for the same courtesy. 🙂

            That tolerance the progressives boast about having cornered the market on…. is not actually PRACTICED by the progressives. They “tolerate” others, as long as they agree with them. Worse, the progressives DEMAND everyone else LIVE as they deem appropriate (in THEIR “comfort zone”). They demand that we ABIDE by THEIR standards. This is evident in everything they say and do. They’re not even shy about it anymore. Again… we are asking for tolerance.

            I stand by my assertion that the criminals are not “us.” They are NOT part of society. They did NOT help create this country. They are pathological. They are sociopathic. Evil exists. And, evil does not contribute to society. Contrary to the progressive mantra, I do not believe in a “collective guilt.” They are a cancer that must be excised. Meanwhile, you guys keep focusing on law-abiding citizens. I could argue that is also pathological.

          • Susan Vadnais says:

            We are in this together. Treating “the cancer ” as you call it, may necessitate compromises for all of us, including legal and responsible gun owners.

            Some states may start allowing “sufficiently trained” teachers to carry guns. Many may be opposed to such a move, many may oppose it.

            By the way ,

            Why is a 30 round magazine considered “standard?” Why did we go that high?

            Is it a matter of convenience, necessity?

            Please explain if you know.

            Thank you.

          • Susan Vadnais says:

            Correction. Many may oppose arming teachers, many may support it.

          • The Dental Warrior says:

            I disagree with the term being used by the media and Chicken-Littles, “arming teachers,” as it implies the ACTION of providing teachers with firearms. That’s not what is being proposed. Rather, it is proposed that we REMOVE the current laws making schools so-called “gun-free zones.” The current law DISARMS all LAW-ABIDING citizens (including teachers, faculty, staff, employees, parents, and visitors) simply because they are on a school campus. That’s simply foolish and turns schools into soft targets for bad guys (who care not about the “gun free zone” law). In fact, it can be argued that it ATTRACTS bad guys.

            The 30-round magazine is what comes with the AR-15. Literally… in the box… with the rifle. As such, it’s the standard magazine. Your label of “high” is arbitrary and subjective. Which number is “high?” Which number is “too high?” Which number would be “low,” in your estimation?

            Why 30? First, why not? But, in practicality, there is a “sweet spot” for magazine capacity with any rifle. For the AR-15 it’s 30 rounds. For the AR-10, it’s 20 rounds.

            When at the range, a higher number of rounds available to be fired before having to reload the magazine is desirable. Why? Because we’d rather be shooting than spending time reloading mags. More is better… to a point. If a mag is “too big,” it gets heavy. Yes…. heavy. It’s fatiguing to hold up and aim a gun accurately if it’s heavy.

            Secondly, a giant loaded mag changes the balance of the weapon, which can also affect accuracy.

            Thirdly, larger-capacity mags become very long. It sticks out from the receiver to the point of being obtrusive. For example, a long mag will interfere with being able to fire the rifle in the prone (lying on the ground) position. So, sometimes even a 30-round mag is too long for prone shooting. I have shorter mags for that purpose.

            In a defensive scenario, there is no such thing as “too much ammo.” In a defensive scenario, I want as many rounds on hand as possible. The last thing I want is to run out of ammo when the bad guy/guys is/are still coming. I need enough to stop the attack. More is better. Bad guys on crack / meth can absorb a lot of lead before stopping.

            Also, giant mags are notoriously unreliable, causing “jams.” So, at some point, the giant magazines become a gimmick and can even detract from the shooting experience.

            The 30-round mag hits that “sweet spot” for most shooting applications with the AR-15. I hope that helps. 🙂

            PS… The focus on the magazine capacity, as it pertains to the potential for criminal damage, is wasted energy. All one needs to do, if the criminal’s mission is maximum damage, is to carry multiple magazines. A magazine change takes about 2 seconds. Faster, if you practice. The Columbine and Virginia Tech atrocities were both committed with AWB-era 10-round magazines.

            So, when on “OFFENSE,” the mag capacity is virtually irrelevant, if the perp is carrying a load of multiple magazines in a backpack or in a multi-pocket vest. It doesn’t matter if he has five 30-round magazines or fifteen 10-round magazines. The potential for casualties is exactly the same, especially in a “gun free zone.”

            However, when on “DEFENSE,” such as a concealed weapon-carrying citizen, you usually have ONE magazine… the one in the gun. Now mag capacity matters! It will suck big time, if all you have is 10 rounds, when you needed 11 to stop the attack on you or loved ones.

            PPS…. I am glad you asked those questions. I’m sure many are thinking / wondering the same thing. I am grateful for the opportunity to answer them. Cheers!

  5. In the sad event of a natural disaster, we commonly witness looting. That often represents looting on a business, which puts food on the table for families. It could be a business which supports generations of a family(ies).

    So, I appreciate armed responders to protect their business. If they desire high capacity magazines, fine. If they feel most comfortable w/ an AR15, fine. Please assume the criminals are well-armed, be it New Orleans, New York, LA, or Chicago (Chi-raq).

    The cities w/ the most restrictive gun laws are also the cities which demonstrate the most gun violence. “Gun free zones” are soft targets for criminals.

    I’ve had the fortune of working in many aspects of the dental industry; public health, private practice, military, school based programs, & corrections. Believe me, all of humanity ISN’T the same. The criminal element has an entirely different value system. And, for the most part, one can’t change that unfortunate fact.

    Michael W Davis, DDS
    Santa Fe, NM

  6. Larry Sutton says:


    I am a pretty passionate hunter and I have a gun in my hands quite a bit during the year. That said, it is just a tool to me and all the gun range stuff would bore me to tears. Different strokes and variety is the spice of life. I do like your passion.

    You did a nice summation of rifles and the .223.

    I am not a fan of innocent Americans being killed. I am wondering if there should be a limit on magazine capacity as a talking point. You can buy 200 round magazines that fit an AR-15. Now it would be fun to shoot but it would be an interesting argument if this is an actual NEED for home protection.
    That (to me) is a bigger deal whether a “black gun” is semi-auto or auto.

    I am sure there are some gun rights types that are upset that their constitutional rights are being violated by not be able to procure a fully automatic .223. I just don’t see much difference in skilled hands between auto and semi with a large capacity magazine.

    I personally don’t think we should continue business as usual and all breakdowns in the system needs to be analyzed.

    Like you I don’t claim to have all the answers. I guess I just don’t think there should be any “line in the sand”that goes too far to protect our kids. All options need to be evaluated.

    I can also go the other way as devil’s advocate and say I want a shoulder fired rocket to protect my property. Why can I have an AR-15 and not a rocket? It is another arbitrary line that is being drawn in weapons that can bring about a lot of damage to a lot of people quickly.

    In Vegas those AR-15’s would probably be more lethal than one rocket. Terrible either way but it is getting tough to just say it is all about bad people.

    Thinking out loud. Seeing the kids and parents at MSJ has had a strong effect on me.

    Cheers to your wonderful blog.

    • The Dental Warrior says:

      Thanks for your comments, Larry. It’s worth noting that magazine limits have been tried (the AWB of 1994). It did NOTHING for crime rates. That’s why the AWB was sunsetted in 2004. As I mentioned in a previous comment above, the only thing mag limits does is disadvantage defensive efforts. It does nothing, literally nothing, to mitigate damage caused by an attacker on the offense. See Columbine. See Virginia Tech. See Isla Vista, CA. All used low-capacity 10-round mags.

      When someone qualifies their position on this topic by prefacing with, “I’m a hunter, and I know guns,” I am going to be blunt… it’s a red flag. There’s even a slang term for it. 😛 I won’t say it, though. (Hint: “kill the wabbit”) You know HUNTING guns. Many of which are semi-automatic, by the way. 🙂

      Guns are a very multi-faceted tool. I agree that it’s a tool. It’s a uniquely fantastic tool. It can be used to hunt / put food on the table. That’s awesome. Guns can be used for sport and competition. In fact, my AR-15 is a dedicated precision competition rifle. I have shot competitively with my AR-15 out to 600 yards.

      Guns can be used for just fun… plinking, for example. Guns can be used to protect yourself and family in self-defense. Guns in the hands of citizens are also the last bulwark against tyranny. Guns = Independence. Guns = Freedom. It doesn’t mean you HAVE to own guns for ALL those purposes. My point is that your singular use of them for hunting does not negate the validity of the other uses or other styles of firearms, even if you choose to not have them for those purposes.

      By the way, hunting is not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. Nor is it mentioned in ANY of the Federalist Papers, letters, or speeches that led up to the writing and ratification of the 2nd Amendment. The history of the 2A has quite literally nothing to do with hunting.

      I don’t hunt. But, I am not against hunting. Rather, I support hunting. Very much so! You may have seen my blog article about that very thing: Hashtag: Lions, Flags, and Dentists… Oh my!

      You’re also getting close to conflating semi-auto and auto. 🙂 They are not the same thing. Quite different, actually. That said, yes… just as I’m opposed to mag limits, I believe the NFA should be rescinded. Yep… citizens should be able to own full-auto firearms without getting a Class 3 license. I understand some may disagree. 🙂 I understand, but I’m not emotional about it. It’s very matter-of-fact to me.

      As for your disdain for the “200-round mag”…. have you ever tried one? Have you ever seen one in use? Here’s the thing… they don’t work. They’re “jam-o-matics.” Those big drum mags are widely known among the gun-cognoscenti as JUNK / gimmicks. Honestly, I’d rather face down a bad guy with a piece of shit 100-round “beta-mag” than a bad guy with three or more 30-round standard capacity (very reliable) Magpul mags.

      I’m equally emotional about kids being slaughtered by a sociopath. Anti-gunners don’t have a lock on morality, sympathy, or love for their fellow man. This isn’t a concern-signaling contest. But, I direct my energies in concert with facts and logic. Blaming the implement is simply irrational. More importantly, it’s COUNTER-productive. It’s to ignore the real problem by distraction. All of these implements have been available for longer than I’ve been alive. That’s officially a LONG time now. 🙁 When I went to high school, it was COMMON for long guns to be hanging in the rear window racks of pick-up trucks in the school parking lot. COMMON. Nobody was ever shot. No gun was ever even used as leverage in a fight (there were plenty of fights). So, the guns haven’t changed. They. Have. Not. And, I can easily prove that. Soooooo, what has changed, Larry? THAT’S where we need to direct our energy.

  7. “… There are over 4 million AR-15 owners in the U.S. Most of them are law abiding. Some of them are dentists…”
    Wait. “Most of them are law abiding?”
    Seriously? “Most of them…”?

  8. David Moffet says:

    Enjoyed the article Mike.
    Logical and well presented, as usual.


    David Moffet

  9. Jo says:

    Here is an article people should start with before diving into this discussion.

    • The Dental Warrior says:

      Hi Jo,

      There are some things in that article that are incorrect that lead me to believe it is a bit of a “false flag” article. He may be a Marine (or not). By the way… traditionally, a Marine never uses the term “Ex-Marine.” Really. They don’t. They refer to themselves as Marines or former Marines.

      But, for example, his assertion that you can convert a semi-auto AR-15 to full-auto with a “drop-in” trigger assembly kit is absolutely FALSE. False. False. False.

      The other things, such as bump-stocks and trigger cranks do NOT convert a rifle to full-auto. It sort of simulates it. But, it is not a conversion. Furthermore, the very same effect (bump-firing) can be done with just your bare hands with no accessories needed. You just need to know how to do it. Again…. bare hands, no gizmos.

      Some more gibberish from the “Marine’s” article:

      19. Are these all single-bolt action rifles?


      “Single-bolt action” is gibberish. It’s “bolt-action,” period. There’s no such thing as a “single-bolt,” which would presume there is such a thing as a “multi-bolt.” It’s similar to the recent CNN report that used the gibberish term, “full-semi-auto.” This is nonsensical gibberish. We can’t have a conversation about a subject, if we are either making stuff up or incorrectly using terminology.

      • Joe says:

        Hi Mike,

        Sorry you didn’t like the article. It wasn’t for you it was for people who want to have a conversation with you. I have a decent collection of firearms covering most of the spectrum of type of actions and I thought the ” ex-marine” Peter did a good job explaining to a lay person the basics so they could have a conversation.

        I reread the article to look at the parts you took issue with. It is in interview format so the ” single bolt action” part is from the interviewer and the semantic detail just slips past Peter is understandable. He never refers to it as single bolt-action.

        On the other point I agree with you. I think he makes a mistake in not leading the interviewer to think it is easy to convert to true full-auto. What he seems to be saying it is easy to convert to bump fire or add some gadget that makes the trigger manipulation different like a hellfire device, etc.

        I also googled his name and if he is trying to fake being a veteran he is putting a ton of effort into it. The interviewer labeled him an ex-marine. He seems legit–>

        • The Dental Warrior says:

          A gun isn’t “converted to bumpfire.” Any semi-auto can be bump-fired. You just need to know how. No gizmos needed AT ALL. Just as the gun comes from the factory, with your bare hands…. it can be bump-fired. This isn’t new. It’s as old as semi-auto technology itself… 110 years old. The gizmos are just another nifty way to do it.

          The gizmos are more like “training wheels” on a bike. They make it easier for a newbie to not tip over, but anyone can learn to ride a bike so that it doesn’t tip over. Training wheels aren’t necessary for a bike to be ridden.

          Banning bump stocks is like banning training wheels, under the delusion that it will prevent people from riding bikes.

          • Joe says:

            Again it seems like you are trying to educate me on guns. No need for analogies. I have a bumpfire stock and also know how how to bumpfire without it. Just a range toy and a move for the novelty of it, not a way to hit more targets.

            I feel I could easily defend my home with a pump action shotgun or a lever action rifle or a revolver (unless they had plate carriers)… but If I had to hit fifty targets in the shortest amount of time in ranges of under 100 yards I would pick a semi-auto rifle, heck a ruger 10/22 with 25 round mags would probably be the fastest or a reliable 9mm carbine or pistol. However if I needed hydrostatic shock factor and low recoil and fast mag changes it would be hard to argue against using an ar15 in 5.56. For those that may not know AR15 vs other platforms(AK, Tavor, etc) excels at fast magazine changes.

            I hope you agree with me on the above. If not our conversation is likely over.

            I’m not saying regulate anything because there are a millions of guns in peoples homes and then you create a strange black market. I just think its wrong to counter arguments with analogies or scoff at people because they call a mag a clip.

            ” I do not love the bright sword for its swiftness… “

          • The Dental Warrior says:

            Hi Joe,

            I’m not just replying to your comment, I’m writing to my broader audience. So, not all of it is directed at only you. I’m just expanding the discussion, again… for all to read. So, my comment about the bump-stock was more for everyone else. There is a LOT of misinformation and DISinformation out there. I just wanted to make it clear that the bump-stock does nothing to “convert” or change the mechanism of a firearm.

            Absolutely, I agree with you on the viability of a variety of platforms for self-defense. 🙂 Each has advantages and disadvantages. Heck… a 10/22 with a few 25-rd mags would be a great way to “discourage” a bad guy from continuing his (or their) advance. That shit will hurt! A lot of shots with that shit will hurt a lot! 😀

            A few months ago, I got to shoot a Kriss Vector (9-mm) Pistol with a Sig Brace on it. I think that would be an awesome home defense piece.

            That all said, when I read or listen to someone who is advocating for regulation of firearms, I expect them to have a MODICUM of knowledge of the subject. When they make up terminology to elicit an emotional response, or they misuse terminology to make their points, I WILL call them on it. For the most part, I do not believe it’s an accident.

            But, then CNN puts on an “expert” (because he was a General in the Army), who says, “Now I’m going to shoot ‘full-semi-auto’,” and he just pulls the trigger faster (and doesn’t control the weapon very well). That’s crap. He may have been an Army General, but my 13 year old daughter can shoot FAR better than he does. And, his conflation of terminology is both embarrassing and obviously intentional… to fool the muggles and advance the agenda.

            So, yeah… words matter. When dealing with a technical subject, terminology matters. I wouldn’t chide a firearms novice, or a person who admits a lack of familiarity, with using “clip” over “magazine.” But, a “FORMER MARINE???” I feel quite justified in calling him out on it. Something ain’t right there.

  10. Derek Stokes says:

    Excellent, well stated, factual write up that I rather enjoyed. I enjoyed Mark Levin’s short history on the amendments found here: He goes over how the amendment process for our founding fathers, wasn’t just on some whim or as an afterthought. These were well thought and debated issues before they were added as part of the constitution later called “The Bill of Rights.” Again, as always, I enjoy your take on many subjects.

    • The Dental Warrior says:

      Thanks, Derek! How often we’ve heard the vacuous argument, “Well… the Founders didn’t realize we’d have AR-15s. They were talking about muskets!”

      First, they weren’t talking about muskets… no more than they were talking about quills and parchment or the movable type printing press as the only tools to be used for Free Speech and Free Press. Also, good ol’ Benjamin Franklin was QUITE a visionary inventor who foresaw a LOT of technology that had yet to come to fruition.

      That all said, any time I have challenged ANYONE to look to the Federalist Papers, letters, and speeches that are documented (and available) to get an idea of what they REALLY meant by the words in the 2nd Amendment… not a single person has EVER taken me up on it. Not one has risen to the occasion of enlightening himself / herself. The reason is fairly clear. They don’t want to upset their emotionally-held world view. Cognitive Dissonance is very uncomfortable for them.

      Likewise, the term “well-regulated” as it pertains to the militia in the 2A is perpetually and commonly misused in arguments against our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. At the time of ratification, “well-regulated” meant well-equipped and in good working order. For example, a “well-regulated clock” meant that it was accurate and in good working order. It does not mean “regulated” in the sense of government oversight. Again, anyone can look this up (they won’t). I am not fabricating any of this information.

      Furthermore, the militia is quite well-defined in the Constitution itself (all able-bodied men between 17 – 45 years of age). Also, many of the Founders defined the militia in their letters and speeches.

      “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
      — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

      “To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”
      –John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

      “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
      –Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

      “Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”
      –Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

      “The right of the people to keep and bear … arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country …”
      — James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

      “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
      — Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

      “The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon…. [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order.”
      — Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]

      And from the dude that WROTE the Bill of Rights:

      “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
      – James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

      I think that’s enough, eh? But, yeah… the Founders didn’t really mean what they meant. It’s not clear, eh? LOL! But, if any anti-gunner were to actually read those quotes, he would STILL cross his arms, stomp his feet, and say, “Yeah…. but, they didn’t mean AR-15s.” Kinda like they didn’t mean word processors and the internet when they wrote the 1st Amendment? SMH.

  11. AutoJosh says:

    DJ,I wish I had your certainty. WR, Right, it is certainly possible that machine guns would not be viewed as unacceptably inherently dangerous by the most of the population, and that they should be available over the counter. It may well be that citizens have some Creator-endowed right to purchase them. We COULD ask the Creator for Its opinion on the matter, but I”m skeptical that we”d get a reliable answer. My sense is that re-legalization is not happening any time soon, as it”s my sense that the vast majority find them to be unacceptably inherently dangerous, however. Do you disagree? If so, do you believe that L candidates and the LP should be advocating FOR re-legalization? Is there a level of potential lethality that you would support the vast majority”s view that there are classes of weapons that there is no “right to possess?

    • The Dental Warrior says:

      Not sure I understand the question. But, I believe auto guns, SBRs, and suppressors should be removed from the NFA list and be treated like any other firearm (though a suppressor is not a firearm).

  12. Alfred228 says:

    I find it ironic that the very people, who believe our current president is Hitler incarnate. Are the same people that want to throw away the last line of defense we have against a possible tyrannical regime taking over.

    Also as a Marine 0311/0313 I am intimately familiar with the M16, M4, and M27 weapons systems, I also own a Mini 14. I can tell you right now that the standard AR (I say standard because if you are willing to drop the cash it is possible to get ARs that are of a higher quality than the M16/M4s issued to many of the men and women serving to day. However they will NOT have the option for full-auto or three round burst, unless you have a class III firearms license) is no more or less effective. There are only two things I would note. First is that there is a difference in the two rifles magazines and magazine wells, which can through off someone familiar with the AR platform, however a little practice can remedy this. Secondly while the Mini 14 comes in a traditional stock (which some find less scary) after market stocks can give it a similar tactical look and feel to the AR.

    Finally I am rather insulted at the idea of raising the age requirement to 21, to buy guns and ammo. You can volunteer at the age of 18 to fight an possibly die for your country (Oh and we will entrust our NUKEs to you as well), but we cant trust you with a gun, what the ******* Hell!
    If this is going to be a thing, looking at you Kroger, Walmart, and Dick’s Sporting Goods. There should at the very least be a waiver for military personnel.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.