Questionable claims for the AR-15

Just read an interesting piece over at Slate, by a guy who calls himself “a Second Amendment supporter” (although, living in NYC, he doesn’t own a gun — but I guess that’s as close to pro-gun as Slate gets), discussing the claims that the AR-15 is a great weapon for hunting and home defense.

Which seems doubtful to me on both counts. This writer, Justin Peters, cites most of the reasons I already thought that. If I were into hunting, I’d use a rifle (or for birds, a shotgun), rather than a weapon that, as Sean Connery’s Raizuli would say, “fires promiscuously.” A matter of sportsmanship. For home defense, a pistol seems far more practical than a long gun, even a carbine.

But then I’m not trying to sell “modern sporting rifle” to the public.

Here’s the core of the article’s argument:

But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA’s Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn’t really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn’t offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, “spray and pray” hunters to waste ammunition. (The official Bushmaster XM15 manual lists the maximum effective rate of fire at 45 rounds per minute.) As one hunter put it in the comments section of an article on, “I served in the military and the M16A2/M4 was the weapon I used for 20 years. It is first and foremost designed as an assault weapon platform, no matter what the spin. A hunter does not need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt, if he does he sucks, and should go play video games. I see more men running around the bush all cammo’d up with assault vests and face paint with tricked out AR’s. These are not hunters but wannabe weekend warriors.”

In terms of repelling a home invasion—which is what most people mean when they talk about home defense—an AR-15-style rifle is probably less useful than a handgun. The AR-15 is a long gun, and can be tough to maneuver in tight quarters. When you shoot it, it’ll overpenetrate—sending bullets through the walls of your house and possibly into the walls of your neighbor’s house—unless you purchase the sort of ammunition that fragments on impact. (This is true for other guns, as well, but, again, the thing with the AR-15 is that it lets you fire more rounds faster.)

AR-15-style rifles are very useful, however, if what you’re trying to do is sell guns. In a recent Forbes article, Abram Brown reported that “gun ownership is at a near 20-year high, generating $4 billion in commercial gun and ammunition sales.” But that money’s not coming from selling shotguns and bolt-action rifles to pheasant hunters. In its 2011 annual report, Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation announced that bolt-action hunting rifles accounted for 6.6 percent of its net sales in 2011 (down from 2010 and 2009), while modern sporting rifles (like AR-15-style weapons) accounted for 18.2 percent of its net sales. The Freedom Group’s 2011 annual report noted that the commercial modern sporting rifle market grew at a 27 percent compound annual rate from 2007 to 2011, whereas the entire domestic long gun market only grew at a 3 percent rate…

Just before that excerpt, Peters cited what I suspect is the biggest appeal of the AR-15: “because carrying it around makes you look like a badass.”


69 thoughts on “Questionable claims for the AR-15

    1. Steven Davis II

      I doubt anyone with an AR-15 really cares what Burl thinks of them, anymore than they care what the likes of Jesse Jackson thinks of them.

          1. Brad Warthen Post author

            Actually, none of us have used typewriters for about 30 years. That was a transition I gladly made, as it made everything we did much, much easier.

            My point was the “badass” factor…

    2. Bryan Caskey

      I kind of agree here. I participate in friendly sporting clay competitions, mostly that benefit some charity or another. Invariably, you see guys walking around with really nice shotguns; I’m talking shotguns that cost upwards of $7k. Some people would say “Hey, that’s impressive, he’s got a really nice shotgun.” What a badass.

      Actually, no. There’s one thing that impresses me regarding firearms: the ability to hit what you’re aiming at. The guy walking around with a really nice gun, but can’t shoot well, isn’t as impressive as the ol’ boy with the beat up Remington 870 and dusts 25 skeet, or the guy with the US military surplus 1903 who’s driving tacks at 200 yards.

      You want to look like a badass: show me you can shoot. Anyone can walk around and model the gun.

  1. Interested

    Sure you can hunt coyote and hogs with an AR. There is also the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP)’s tradition of sponsoring/assisting with the “President’s Hundred” competition, where servicemembers and civilians alike compete every year. but the best reasons for a civilian to own an ar-15? First, becuase the bad guys have them. Second, because the government has them. (but theirs are fully auto or select fire). We need them, because they have them. If you don’t believe this there is nothing anyone can do to change your mind, until you are a victim.

    Let me quote from another source – an article called “The Riddle of the Gun.”

    Wouldn’t any decent person wish for a world without guns? In my view, only someone who doesn’t understand violence could wish for such a world. A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a knife can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene. There have been cases of prison guards (who generally do not carry guns) helplessly standing by as one of their own was stabbed to death by a lone prisoner armed with an improvised blade. The hesitation of bystanders in these situations makes perfect sense—and “diffusion of responsibility” has little to do with it. The fantasies of many martial artists aside, to go unarmed against a person with a knife is to put oneself in very real peril, regardless of one’s training. The same can be said of attacks involving multiple assailants. A world without guns is a world in which no man, not even a member of Seal Team Six, can reasonably expect to prevail over more than one determined attacker at a time. A world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive. Who could be nostalgic for such a world?

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Oh, I’d bet on an unarmed member of Seal Team Six against an average guy with a knife.

      And hey, you could hunt coyote and hogs with a .50-cal. machine gun, too. Doesn’t make it a logical choice for the purpose.

      1. Steven Davis II

        “And hey, you could hunt coyote and hogs with a .50-cal. machine gun, too. Doesn’t make it a logical choice for the purpose.”

        Depends on how many you’re facing. Besides, the AR-15 would likely be a better choice in the average coyote/hog situation.

      2. Interested

        “Oh, I’d bet on an unarmed member of Seal Team Six against an average guy with a knife.” wow, this comment shows quite a bit of ignorance, Brad. I can’t tell you how I know but I know. (please don’t take offense) and if you never had first hand experience in training or real world engagements I guess I can’t expect you to know anything about this. but a guy with knife wins every time. the problem with knife wounds is they kill you minutes or perhaps hours later – but you die just the same. best defense to the knife is to have your buddy shoot him or run fast. sorry bud, this is an area in which you are without a clue. I will concede to you that a .30 caliber a lever action will be at least as effective as an AR in hunting either coyotes or hogs. but fighting a guy with a knife means you WILL get cut, and you have a good chance of excessive blood loss. in the rock, paper, scissors of violence, gun beats knife. knife versus knife means both guys die. knife versus hands means – well I hope you can figure that out.

    2. bud

      A world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive. Who could be nostalgic for such a world?

      But what if the young, big, strong, aggressive and numerous guys were also armed with automatic guns? Wouldn’t that leverage that youth, size, strength and aggressiveness even more?

      1. Steven Davis II

        Who said we didn’t have access to automatic weapons. Teenagers with a semi-automatic .22LR and a file do dumb things sometimes. Also with most semi-automatics you can do something called bump-shooting which basically turns a semi-automatic into an automatic.

        What if GI Joes were banned in the 1960’s and 1970’s and boys were just left with Ken? Would the number of homosexuals and metrosexuals have skyrocketed?

      2. Interested

        depends on their training. two guys with guns that blow up on the first shot, or that can’t aim or clear jams are ineffective against one trained shooter. this is pretty simple math.

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Yeah, I liked that. Normally, I don’t cite Slate for much of anything (although they often bring other interesting sources to my attention). I used this because the guy laid out pretty well the objections that had always occurred to me with regard to these weapons being for hunting and home defense. Just not the weapons I would choose for that purpose…

  2. Brad Warthen Post author

    This may be the irrelevant comment of the century, but I’ve always objected to the AR-15 and its automatic cousin the M-16 on aesthetic grounds. It looks like the designers were trying to come up with something futuristic-looking. Like a ray gun or something. Looks like it should shoot light beams, rather than .223 ammunition.

    I mean, I look at it and think, I suppose you could make something that looks like that and shoots bullets. Zip guns shoot bullets, for instance. But why would you?

    It looks… electronic or something.

    1. Interested

      this is actually a very relevant comment!!! that black rifle sure is scary- isn’t it? I tend to think the anti gun crowd thinks in terms of objects, whereas the gun folks think in terms of behaviors. so if you are focused on the object, you will notice it is scary, not made with warm beech or oak stocks, but some cold lifeless polycarbonate space-age laser gun. you will want to get rid of the object that reminds you of a threat. If you are behavior oriented, you will want to stop the dangerous behaviors associated with risk of harm. can I be sexist here just a little? forgive me folks – females are the object-thinkers, males tend to be behavior thinkers. brad, you think like a woman! LOL. kidding. but seriously, brad launch your jihad against drunk driving. you will really save lives there.

  3. Brad Warthen Post author

    I’m a traditional kind of guy. I continued to use a wooden Jack Kramer tennis racket until just a few years ago. And I only very recently took my last persimmon wood out of my golf bag. And I’m probably going to put it back. Nothing I have hits as sweetly as that old 4 wood, when I hit it right…

    At least a lot of AK-47s have wooden stocks.

  4. Brad Warthen Post author

    I say that like I ever get out and play sports any more. I think I’ve played golf once in the past year. And it’s been longer than that for tennis.

    I did, however, go bowling on New Year’s Day. I’ve been meaning to post about it…

  5. bud

    Brad looks more like a stone bowling ball kinda guy to me.

    Seems like the gun issue is pretty much stuck in a status quo situation. Nothing is ever likely to change. But we should at least do two tiny things that may help an ittsy bit. First, close the gun show loophole. Why should they be exempt from thorough background checks? Second, limit gun magazines to 10 rounds. Neither will solve the problem but might minimize some situations.

    The long term solution is a change in culture. This is how we achieved civil rights changes, eradication of cigarettes from most public places, a dramatic increase in seat belt usage (and a coresponding decline in traffic deaths to a 60 year low) and now sensible changes in marijuana laws. All those changes took many decades. Hopefully the gun mania will subside over time so we can have a safer society in which to live.

    1. Steven Davis II

      bud, would you also approve a bill that stated that all motor vehicle transactions go through a licensed motor vehicle dealership? No person to person transactions of any motorized vehicle. Motor vehicles kill many, many times more people than guns do.

      Cell phones and texting are probably up there with gun homicide rates. Do we ban those too?

  6. Bryan Caskey

    So many stupid things in that Slate post, but you have to start somewhere, right?

    “In terms of repelling a home invasion—which is what most people mean when they talk about home defense—an AR-15-style rifle is probably less useful than a handgun.” -Guy from Slate

    That’s an ignorant statement from some guy at Slate who’s probably never fired a gun.

    All three types of firearms (shotguns, rifles, and handguns) have pros and cons. But the real truth is that all handguns are (comparatively) poor weapons. The only reason we use them is because they are, to use a word, handy. They are small, don’t weigh much, and you can conceal them on your person. Brad, you would have a problem trying to conceal an AK-47 under your shirt and blazer. A handgun; no problem. Also, by comparison to both rifles and shotguns, handguns are underpowered, and they are more difficult to learn to shoot proficiently. Any long gun that you can mount to your shoulder will be easier to get consistent, accurate hits with.

    Not to go into too much ballistics here, but when you shoot someone with a handgun, you’re basically poking a little hole in them. If you use an expanding round, maybe it’s a little bigger hole. But in the end, it’s just a hole. The human body is pretty amazing in it’s ability to ability to withstand trauma. Unlike the movies, shooting someone once may not actually instantly stop them.

    When you’re trying to stop a person (convenience aside), this is where rifles and shotguns are superior to handguns. Not only can you hit an assailant more quickly and accurately, you can cause more trauma.

    Shotguns: If a handgun poking one hole is good, putting a whole bunch of holes in someone is better. At inside range (probably 15 yards maximum) shotguns don’t have much room to spread, so it’s maybe the size of a Frisbee.

    Rifles: When a rifle bullet hits an assailant, it causes more trauma in addition to putting a hole in someone.

    Handguns are what you use to buy you enough time to get out of trouble or to buy you enough time to get to your long guns.

  7. Brad Warthen Post author

    I’m probably going to show my ignorance here, but doesn’t a 9mm or a .38 caliber slug have a lot more stopping power than a .223?

    Admittedly, I can barely hit a wall with a handgun, but I’m sort of thinking this is less about marksmanship and more about bringing a weapon to bear quickly in the general direction of an intruder. How many burglars are going to stick around to see how good a shot you are when the room is filled with the roar of a handgun, and a muzzle flash has stabbed out in their general direction?

    Which sort of takes us back to a previous discussion about dogs, another excellent answer to the question, “What is most likely to make a burglar leave your house immediately and never want to come back?”

    Now, if we’re talking about something else here, if the issue is whether one can most reliably kill an intruder, rather than run him off (or get him down on the floor with his hands behind his head), then we’re getting into a different sort of discussion, with very different ethical implications.

    1. Steven Davis II

      Probably for the first 15 yards. But do you really want to wait until the enemy is that close?

      How many people are responsible enough to own a dog? I’d say about 50% of current dogs owners are now.

    2. Bryan Caskey

      Brad, It’s complicated, so it’s not a dumb question.

      You have different weight bullets, different muzzle velocities, different bullet shapes….etc.

      After I get my 15 month-old son fed, bathed, and put to bed (my Wife is in Charleston tonight, so I’m solo) I promise I’ll do a long post and try to answer your question.

    3. Interested

      “stopping power” is not what you think it is. the .223/5.56 maintains it’s energy at distance (think less than 600 yards.) trust me, you have quite a bit of reading to do if you want to solve the “9mm versus _____________” debate in stopping power. If 9mm had more “stopping power” whatever that is, don’t you think the arm y would just issue 9mm exclusively?

  8. Mark Stewart

    Pa, I saw Injuns out back! Should I get down the long gun from the mantle?

    The one thing the guy at Slate nailed is the guns as compensation for male insecurity. We do weapons like that. What guys need to internalize is that the gun without the personality just makes a guy another George Zimmerman. I would say that if you feel the need to own an assault weapon for anything other than as a high-powered pinker to impress your friends, grow a pair. In any type of potential conflict or aggression it is much more important to remain calm, project authority and think. To say one is armed for self defense is basically an admission that one is short on probably more than one of those things. And that is exactly the type of person who should not be grabbing a gun in the middle of the night; especially one that will penetrate a wood house at 1500 yards. Mighty neighborly to be playing with those kind of rapid fire guns.

    The other interesting thing is the way that tradional hunting has fallen off as interest in military-lite (paranoia driven) weapons and “tactics” has grown. It is like the rise of the SUV. This stuff is mostly just ego-stroking Suburban angst. Real hunting is hard, takes skill and lots of patience. Military-lite weapons are all about immediate gratification and projection. But unlike Harley’s, hot rods, bass boats and , guns kill – and most often those nearest to us.

    1. Bryan Caskey

      “Remain calm, project authority, and think.” That’s sweet. Spoken like someone who’s never faced an irrational, evil, and armed attacker bent on harming them.

      “Real hunting is hard, takes skill and lots of patience.” It’s nowhere near as difficult as golf.

      “But unlike Harley’s, hot rods, bass boats and , guns kill – and most often those nearest to us.” Would you care to reconsider this remark?

    2. Bryan Caskey

      “And that is exactly the type of person who should not be grabbing a gun in the middle of the night; especially one that will penetrate a wood house at 1500 yards.”

      1500 YARDS? LOL.

      I guess we’re not talking about the .223 anymore.

      1. Mark Stewart

        500 yds. / 1500 ft. my bad. But you got the idea, right? If a bullet leaves your property, it is going to likely hit someone elses (or someone else), no?

    3. Interested

      penetrate a house at 1500 yards? now we are in fantasy land. It’s certainly possible, but at the high angle you’d need to aim, the round would have lost quite a bit of “spin” and would likely bounce off the vinyl siding! You seem to say that for men, owning a gun like the ones mentioned here compensates for something. I agree that it does. the gun is the great equalizer. statistically speaking, you will be a victim some day in a circumstance where you would not dare come back and post such things.

  9. Phillip

    Maybe I’ve missed it, but has anybody come up with reliable numbers on how many home invasions are successfully repelled either by the firing or brandishing of a weapon vs. how many times a fatality occurs in a home as a result of accidental discharge of said weapon (by owner or by, say, a child) or as part of a domestic dispute elevated to a tragic level by the simple availability of a loaded weapon? Just anecdotally from a sense of what I read about or hear about in the media, it seems the latter scenarios are far more common. It seems that what is at work here is another example of the all-too-human capacity for self-delusion, as in polls that show that a vast majority of drivers consider themselves “above-average drivers,” which of course is impossible. I suspect that most gun owners consider themselves “above-average” in terms of the responsibility they believe they exercise as regards that ownership.

    1. Steven Davis II

      “Maybe I’ve missed it, but has anybody come up with reliable numbers on how many home invasions are successfully repelled either by the firing or brandishing of a weapon”

      More than hysterically screaming, “Get out of my house”.

      1. Interested

        no, I’m pretty sure if a man shakes his purse and demands the fiend egress, he will be able to come back here and tell us all how worthless the scary black rifles are. seriously phillip, I believe the bureau of justice statistics keeps similar data, probably not exactly what you are looking for.

    2. Steven Davis II

      Let me guess, Phillip is just another anti-gun person on this blog. Have you met Kathryn and the gang?

    3. Silence

      @Phillip – the Kleck study, from FSU in 1993 found that guns are used in defense 3-4 times more often than they are used in the commission of a crime. In 1994 the USDOJ estimated that there are 1.5 million defensive gun uses each year. While accidental shootings are tragic and receive a lot of attention in the media, they are not nearly that common.

      It’s also hard to estimate how many crimes are not committed because people may be armed. It’s kind of like trying to figure out how many hijacking attempts the TSA has foiled – you just can’t know for sure.

    4. Kathryn Fenner

      I don’t know about your specific query, but there are 31,000 gun deaths each year, and 200 are justified self-defense.

  10. Interested

    my last comment: you guys live your lives, I’ll live mine. anyone who wants my guns can have them all, but one round at a time. Molon labe.

  11. Mark Stewart

    I will let a handgun maker comment on all of this stupid bluster. Check this out.

    “Confidence to live your life” says the company, depicting a man hunting with his shotgun and dog – and a Glock on his hip. I am just beyond tired at the paranoia that is peddled and hyped. Clearly the implication is he needs to go out in fear of other hunters, or whatever other boggeymen may frighten the ad viewer.

    I have nothing against guns as firearms for hunting, target shooting and (sensible) home defense; it is the specific attitude of some extremists that has me saying that some reasonable and responsible restrictions on some types of guns and weapon components is absolutely called for to rein in this irrationality expressed above.

    1. Silence

      Mark, The Constitution doesn’t enshrine a right to hunt or to have arms for target shooting and sporting purposes. It says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The founders were fresh off a revolution against a tyrannical government. They utilized the best weaponry available at the time to resist and would expect that we’d do likewise.

  12. Kathryn Fenner

    As far as home invasions–breaking into a home when it is occupied—almost all are targeted. Even the stupidest burglar would rather break and enter when no one is home. The ones I read about in the paper are invariably drug- , gang- or weapons-related. The risk is outweighed by the high-value target.

    No one is going to break into my house if there is the slightest indication anyone is home. There are no valuables worth the risk. Student housing gets broken into in our neighborhood all the time, especially during break, because they do not lock their doors even when they are obviously away and have the latest tech equipment.

  13. Silence

    @ Kathryn – our neighbors had a home invasion burglary, I don’t think there was any particular high value target involved. They were upstairs sleeping while the ground floor was burgled.
    Agreed though that generally speaking burglars would prefer to target houses that are unoccupied. Often enough though, they do not. A prominent local attorney and his family were held hostage inside their house in Columbia a few years back. Some folks might remember the story.

  14. Mark Stewart

    Silence; you played fast and loose with both my comment and the Constitution’ s intended meaning. You know that.

  15. Mark Stewart

    Almost 2/3’s of the gun deaths each year are suicides. Either gun-owners or their children.

    Accidents are about 5% percent. There it’s probably split between gun-owners, their children and their friends – or their children’s friends.

    The other third are homicides. So if 200 are justifiable self–protection, that means 98% of the homicides are murders.

    200 out of 32,000 firearm deaths last year are justifiable self-defense. Hold your own opinions; but everyone should be aware of the facts.

    1. Steven Davis II

      “200 out of 32,000 firearm deaths”

      200 is better than 0… especially if it personally involves you.

  16. Mark Stewart

    My mistake: i left out the 400 or so justifiable homicides by law enforcement officers. So about 600 of the 32,000 each year are justifiable. That is still less than 2% of the total annual deaths from firearms.

  17. Silence

    Suicide’s actually about 55%. Homicide’s about 40%. 2% justifiable, and 3% accidents. I think you aren’t being totally fair by excluding all of the incidents where a firearm is presented or used defensively that don’t involve a killing. Foiled robberies, kidnappings, that type of thing. For all we know there could be 10 non-shooting resolutions to each one that involves a shooting.

    Let’s assume that some people would still off themselves even without access to a firearm. Hanging, poisoning, drowning, self-immolation, suicide-by-cop, vehicular “accidents” and that sort of thing. Some people would still homicide other folks even without a firearm – edged weapons, bludgeons, poisoning, choking, bunga-bunga, etc. The truly determined would still find a way in both types of deaths.

    As far as accidents – each one is tragic. However, some of those people would have died from another type of accident. If they didn’t shoot themselves, maybe they would have gotten hit by a car or drowned instead, you just never know.

    I disagree that I played fast and loose with the 2nd amendment. That’s your opinion, but you are wrong.

    Let me be clear: Buy and own at least one gun, and be responsible with it.
    Always treat every firearm as if it were loaded. Keep the muzzle pointed downrange. Don’t point a gun unless you intend to shoot. Don’t shoot unless you intend to kill. Keep it locked up if you have kids in the house. If you don’t intend to keep it loaded, make sure you file down the front sight.

  18. Mark Stewart


    Since both the wording and the intent of the Second Amendment have never really been sorted out – which only really became an issue at the close of WWI – I would stand by my opinion. If it were otherwise, machine guns, anti-armor rockets and so forth would be in the market in great numbers (and more advanced stuff if the costs for current military weaponry were not so expensive). But they are not. When the impacts of technological advancement in firearms became understood, and the deadly effects on innocents and society as a whole began to mount, the country came together to ban “non-sporting” and non-handgun weapons from general civilian use. That stood as reasonable for a long time. Then the NRA morphed from being a father/son thing to being a political lobbying force. And gun manufacturers, seeing their market for hunters steadily eroding, began to focus more and more on selling into fear.

    So, no, I do not buy the viewpoint that certain types of weapons, ammunition and gear (magazines for one) cannot be restricted and that laws mandating firearm responsibility – including in my view liability for storage and use – cannot be instituted.

    In fact I would be happy to see a (private) insurance mandate be instituted to insure for liability arising from all firearms. As far as I am concerned, this would go a long way toward i) reducing the numbers of weapons laying around, ii) increase personal firearms responsibility, iii) ensure safer and more secure weapons storage, and iv) permit every gun owner to continue to possess and collect as they see fit. I would also be happy to see the Federal Government buy-back weapons at FMV. It wouldn’t seem hard to remove 100 million weapons from the market for $25-40 billion. And to really tick you off; a national firearms registry would be good for everyone – including gun owners. If it had to be, a state by state system would be fine, too.

    1. Steven Davis II

      “In fact I would be happy to see a (private) insurance mandate be instituted to insure for liability arising from all firearms.”

      Do you work for the insurance industry? Asking because you’re suggesting the insurance rates go up for 90%+ of US households.

      Do the gang-bangers have to have insurance? What about renters?

      ” I would also be happy to see the Federal Government buy-back weapons at FMV.”

      They’re going to need a second machine to punch out those trillion dollar coins.

      ” a national firearms registry would be good for everyone – including gun owners.”

      I volunteer you to handle Section 8 housing and known Meth producing neighborhoods.

    2. Silence

      I’m not saying that restrictions “cannot” be instituted. I am saying that they “should not” be instituted. The only purpose of the second amendment is to protect our freedom to defend ourselves – much as the other amendments also protect established rights. If we applied the same logic to the 1st Amendment that some folks try to apply to the 2nd, it would go like this:
      “The founding fathers never envisioned us having computers, e-readers and the internet. Back in their day, all people read were newspapers, pamphlets and a handful of books. They didn’t have telephones, TV or radio. Therefore, freedom of speech and of the press should obviously not be extended to these more modern means of communication. We need to regulate the content of these media in order to protect the citizenry.”
      Which of course is ludicrous.

    3. Silence

      There’s already basically a national firearms registry, when you purchase a firearm at a retail dealer or from a retail dealer at a gun show (with a background check of course) the sale is registered with the BATF.

      These folks proposing additional taxes on guns, ammo or an insurance requirement are basically trying to disenfranchise poor people – take away poor people’s rights. In what other context does that fly? Should we re-establish a poll tax for voting? Should we tax free speech or the practice of religion? That way we can ensure that only wealthy people can speak their mind, worship as they wish, and choose our leaders. Sounds like a plan.

  19. Tom Claridge

    This what you get when a bunch of ill informed people, certainly entitled to their opinion, talk about things they no little to nothing about! Nonsense for the most part! Did you catch the part about the rifle not having the stopping power of big caliber hunting rifles? AR15 is only .223 caliber, you know a 22,
    but has a bigger cartridge to give it more muzzle velocity. It is no more dangerous then a few dozen other semi-automatic rifles and has no greater rate of fire as it is NOT a machine gun or fully automatic gun those have been illegal in the US since the 1930’s. Opinions are like….well……ears everybody
    has a couple but that does mean they are based on fact a reasonable basis!

Comments are closed.