Showdown on the Second Amendment: Harris Calls for Ban on “Assault Weapons”

We recently discussed how President Joe Biden has not only repeated false statements about the history of the Second Amendment, but has failed to acknowledge the limits imposed by the Second Amendment in calling for a crackdown on “assault weapons.” He recently has not, however, called specifically for a ban, which would run into serious constitutional challenges. Now Vice President Kamala Harris has taken that step forward in demanding a ban on “assault weapons.” (Notably, this week, a Republican house member also came out in favor of a ban on “assault weapons.”)

Politicians often use the term “assault weapon” to refer to the AR-15 and similar models of firearms.  These civilian models are not automatic weapons (which are illegal for sale for most citizens). As discussed earlier, the AR-15 is the most popular gun in America and the number is continuing to rise rapidly, with one AR-15 purchased in every five new firearms sales. These AR-15s clearly are not being purchased for armored deer. Many are purchased for personal and home protection; it also is popular for target shooting and hunting. Many gun owners like the AR-15 because it is modular; depending on the model, you can swap out barrels, bolts and high-capacity magazines, or add a variety of accessories. While it does more damage than a typical handgun, it is not the most powerful gun sold in terms of caliber; many guns have equal or greater calibre.

Nevertheless, Vice President Harris declared this  a”weapon of war” that has “no place in civil society.” What followed would appear to push beyond where President Biden left the issue as a criticism as opposed to a call for an outright ban: “We are not sitting around waiting to figure out what the solution looks like. You know, we’re not looking for a vaccine. We know what works on this. Let’s have an assault weapons ban.”

In boarding Air Force 2 after attending one of the funerals in Texas, Harris told the press “You know what an assault weapon is? You know how an assault weapon was designed? It was designed for a specific purpose – to kill a lot of human beings quickly. An assault weapon is a weapon of war with no place, no place in a civil society.”

I have previously written about the failure of politicians to acknowledge the limits posed by the Second Amendment and controlling case law. While there are good-faith objections to how the Second Amendment has been interpreted, the current case law makes such bans very difficult to defend. In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms.

The effort to ban AR-15s often fails to clearly distinguish the weapons from other semi-automatic weapons in terms of calibre or rate of fire. There are also obvious practical problems. With an estimated 393 million guns in the United States and an estimated 72 million gun owners; three out of ten Americans say they have guns. Indeed, gun ownership rose during the pandemic. When former Texas congressman and U.S. Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke declared, “Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15,” he was widely celebrated on the left. However, even seizing that one type of gun would require confiscation of as many as 15 million weapons.

Notably, O’Rourke previously walked back his declaration that he was coming for everyone’s AR-15s when he declared his candidacy for the Texas governorship. He recently switched back to his earlier position after the massacre and his controversial appearance at a press conference with local officials.

Efforts to ban this model already have failed in the courts on constitutional grounds, though litigation is continuing on that issue. Most recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down a California ban on adults under 21 from purchasing semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15.

The Supreme Court has a pending Second Amendment case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, that is likely to further strengthen gun rights this term.

Politicians have often ignored such precedent in pushing legislation that is likely to fail in the courts. The result is that liberal cities like New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., have created precedent against gun control efforts.

With almost 400 million guns in the country, politicians do not want to admit that no legislative measure is likely to stop such massacres by loners like the Texas gunman. He likely could have killed the same number of victims with a semi-automatic handgun. Those are questions that will be asked by courts in any challenge to a ban pursued by the Biden Administration. However, there are things that we can do like address the lack of funding for mental illness treatments in this country. That will require politicians who are willing to work on the basis of the realities rather than the rhetoric surrounding this national crisis.

261 thoughts on “Showdown on the Second Amendment: Harris Calls for Ban on “Assault Weapons””

  1. There are rumors that many of our US politicians etc. have been blackmailed by the Epstein/Magog cabal. If this is true then we should know who they are cause they are working against us ~ on every front.

    1. There is something to be said for your POV. Epstein , and Ms Maxwell are the tip of a big spear of immorality. Its obvious the sins and politics they indulged in with young women and corruption of a particular party. They are guilty – one already mysteriously dead. But why have we not seen the client list , the videos , audio that we ALL know Epstein and Maxwell made and kept. The very salt of our upper echelon of wealthy elite and government people that indulged in Epstien’s immoral circus …why are they not named , shamed and indicted ?. Could it be old fashioned blackmail , and or old fashioned too much money and privilege at the top to indict let alone convict?. Our Govt has been working hard to douse any and all smoke from this fire …does this whole fiasco indict them as well.. people wonder , real people dont.

  2. Seems to me the real issue here is mental illness and how it has increased over the past few decades. That is what needs to be addressed.
    Read an article with evidence from the CDC that showed mental illness has increased in teens even pre-teens with the increase of screen time.
    But we dont want to talk about that. There are entire industries who’s profits depend on people staring into screens.

    In the movie, The Incredibles 2, Screenslaver makes a monologue about people watching screens, being mindless consumers, not participating in life.
    Quite apt.
    And the fact it I find it apt, while watching a movie/screen is not lost on me.

  3. Hey Kamala, have you still not learned? it’s very simple: The power of the people is stronger than the people in power.

  4. In 1980, the population was around 225 million. Today it’s around 330 million. If the population increases by 100 million, or 50%, you’d expect the absolute number of sociopaths and psychopaths in the population to increase as well. It’s math.

    Blaming the tool ignores the empirical data. From about 1990 until Democrat voters began burning down cities after Ferguson, gun homicide rates declined by around 50%. During that 25-30 year period tens of millions of guns were manufactured and sold to private owners. In addition, during that time many states liberalized gun laws making it easier to lawfully possess firearms. There could not be a clearer refutation of the Democrat’s anti-gun slogan, “more guns means more crime”. The empirical data just do not support it. At least not in America over the 25-30 year period when it was easier to buy a gun than probably anytime in the 20th century.

    If you want to TRY to stop sociopaths – men who shoot their grandmother in the face and then run to a “gun free” elementary school to lock young innocent children in a room so he can shoot them one by one – then what we need is “common sense sociopath control.” Good luck with that.

    1. Here , here now !. You spout way too much common sense and facts. You are gonna cause some blue heads to pop. But I’m ok with that…it’s long overdue for some facts and common sense to be injected into these events and discussions of same.

  5. Harris has NO IDEA what she talks about, her comments are foolish, lacking and etc. She has proved this through out her VP. The DEM’s and their allies, for years are against eh 2nd Amendment. They hat the Constitution it is in their way for their crazy and foolish LFAR LEFT Authoritarian agenda. Whatever Harris says is meaningless accept for the far Left and MSM

  6. Is these weapons are so powerful that police are afraid to confront shooters that have them, they need to be banned. There is nothing in the second amendment that says that the right to have any gun you want outweighs public safety. That would the the “well regulated” part.

    1. Your side doesn’t want a well-regulated militia. They want an unregulated tyranny.

      1. Says the side that attempted a coup to install an unelected presidentz

        1. It was a stupid event, a pointless riot, but not a coup. Your guys want to proscribe speech. Not your speech. My speech. That’s tyranny, buddy.

    2. You are so out of touch with reality. The gov’t stooge proposed to head the ATF can not – or will not define what an “assault weapon” is. The 2nd amendment when created was a blanket for ownership of ALL arms. Shall Not Be Infringed…yet we have a govt with a history of growing bigger , more oppressive and destined to become a cancerous to freedom dystopian George Orwell 1984 scenario.
      What is truly dangerous and powerful is govt armed with technology to spy on it’s people , store data on it’s people in an unprecedented scale and illegal ways. A govt eager to tax us and lock us down into serfdom. A govt willing to sell our sovereignty out to the WHO and horrible people like Klaus Schwab.
      The leftist calls for public health and for the children…the same party that demands abortion murder mills up to the last day of the ninth month… hypocrisy of legend herein. That potus and the DC swamp have politicized these horrible events and have done nothing to stop the insanity of people glaringly calling out to their communities they need help or require mental intervention. Big brother wont have that or any common sense legislation to protect our schools. Oddly they are a one trick pony yet again trying to legislate the constitution down to meaninglessness…or serfdom.

      1. Phergus: Home run! I worry way more about the government and its dangerous overreaching into our lives than I do about a bogeyman in the dark assaulting me and my family.

    3. There are no group rights. You have the right to defend yourself. You have no right legally speaking to be “safe”.

    4. There is something in the 2A.

      It’s the last 8 words.
      “…right of the people shall not be infringed”.

      “Well regulated” meant equipped to a standard. Not smothered in red tape til it’s meaningless.

  7. She can’t preach “burn, baby, burn” during an election year and then expect people to give up their guns.

    Kamala needs to put a trigger lock on her big mouth. She’s why many are buying guns.

  8. Hey Harris’s idea on banning assault rifles just might work. While she is at it, why doesn’t she push for criminalization of heroin, cocaine, meth, and fentanyl? That should stop the opioid crisis in its tracks! Wait what? Already illegal? How’s that working for you progressives?

    A Secret Service study found that over 70% of school shooters had a history of mental health issues, majority from broken homes. The Texas shooter had a broken home, drug addict mother, anger management problems, mental health issues, (why are we surprised?), and a rap sheet.

    If there is one thing you can count on progressives for, its simplistic and ineffective answers to complex social problems.

    Turley is right, we need to address the root causes of social decay.

    1. I’ve yet to see mention of his father anywhere. It appears that he was raised by a single mother who couldn’t control him, and that he used violence and intimidation in the family to get his way. He had no job, no money, and didn’t know how to drive. So how did he get those expensive weapons the day after his 18th birthday? I’m wondering if it’s the same situation as the Sandy Hook shooter, and the young black male in Roseburg OR who shot-up a community college, where a single mother who couldn’t deal with her emotionally unstable young-adult son purchased weapons for him because that’s what he wanted and she couldn’t or wouldn’t say “no” to him?

      1. You’re making good arguments for a “supervision” requirement for gun owners under 25. A responsible adult would have to co-sign, and be responsible to prevent criminal use of the weapon.

        1. Then you’d better raise the voting and military service age as well because 18 is legal adulthood.

          1. Not really. You can’t buy a beer until you’re 21. You can’t rent a car until you’re 25. In the military, gun use is under strict training and supervision. Although the age to vote was dropped from 21 to 18, it’s not like that should set the bar. If anything, 18 year olds are far more immature now than they were several generations ago.

            1. Beer and car rentals are not discussed in the Constitution or its amendments. All these things are regulated by the states. The right of individual gun ownership is incorporated into the Constitution.

              1. RE: “”” The right of individual gun ownership is incorporated into the Constitution……………………”Notwithstanding the lengthy opinions in Heller and McDonald, they [the Court] technically ruled only that government may not ban the possession of handguns by civilians in their homes. Heller tentatively suggested a list of “presumptively lawful” regulations, including bans on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, bans on carrying firearms in “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings, laws restricting the commercial sale of arms, bans on the concealed carry of firearms, and bans on weapons “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Many issues remain open, and the lower courts have disagreed with one another about some of them, including important questions involving restrictions on carrying weapons in public.”” In this it is clear that the Court has not closed the door on the matter of individual states deciding what determines qualification and competence. In the unresolved matter of felons and the mentally ill, that is issue which recent events have brought these conversations.l

                1. “Only applied to handguns”. Caerano vs Massachusetts expanded that right and I quote from the SCOTUS decision:

                  The U.S. Supreme Court, per curiam, vacated, reiterating that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,”

            2. Can you be charged as an adult at 18? Can you buy property? Sign a contract? Get married? Do we induct minors? No? Then you are an adult. Everything that is over 18 is wrong and immoral.

      2. The truck belonged to his grandfather. The weapons were already tracked to a seller that offered no credit financing.


    1. Anonymous: I want to see your “DUE RESPECT” bucket for Ms. Harris. Methinks it looks a bit barren. I know mine is (for her and Hillary as well for that matter).

  10. ATF recently stated 700 million guns in circulation. NO ONE IS TAKING OUR GUNS!

    Mr Turley nailed it. Address the mental illness and STOP with the lies about the Laws on the books!

    1. Mental illness is only going to get worse with the codifying of legal marijuana and everything that goes with it. Read up on it: marijuana hastens a young person’s proclivity (if they have one) to schizophrenia. I have seen it myself with a young person in the foster care system.

      1. I think it’s no different than alcohol use. Moderate occasional use is one thing. Drink a fifth of whiskey a day and you’ll be just as nuts.

  11. She continues to do a great job of campaigning for a red sweep in November !

  12. I often hear the argument that guns don’t kill people, people do. If that argument is sound, then no gun should be banned, for example, a fully automatic machine gun since it too is no threat to anyone unless handled by a bad person. Same is true of an RPG.

    I often hear the argument that if you ban assault style weapons, then only bad people will get their hands on them. If that argument is sound, then we should lift the ban on Thompson submachine guns so good people can get their hands on them too so they won’t be outgunned.

    Does it ever occur to anyone that sometimes good people go bad?

    One of the things which makes our country so exceptional is the fact that we have among the youngest and most lethal mass shooters of innocent civilians in the world!

    1. Dumb rhetoric, but if you have interest in the lives oof Americans, this might interest you.

      ‘Serious Breach:’ Key senators demand update on 50 dangerous Afghans Biden let enter U.S.
      Sens. Grassley, Portman and Inhofe say they fear vetting has not been fixed despite watchdog warning.

      Three senior U.S. senators are demanding a briefing from the FBI on dozens of Afghan refugees that were mistakenly let into the United States by the Biden administration despite serious security red flags in their background.

      The watchdog said “significant security concerns” included individuals whose latent fingerprints have been found on improvised explosive devices and known or suspected terrorists. Among the databases that weren’t checked was the Defense Department’s tactical terrorism data.

    2. Jeff as usual you miss the margin again. Machine guns are not banned…they are very strictly curtailed – and unconstitutionally . A few days ago groomer schumer filibustered a bill proposed to address mental health and school security in this nation…but the dem and swamp narrative would never allow that. What is left of our govt is all about doing symbolism…and it’s only substance so far has been grift , inflation , energy and food shortages , taxation , sending billions outside the country and zero border control …and so much more like even considering selling us out to the WHO for example. America has not had a govt for and by the people in many decades. This govt cabal’s actions speak louder than words , and yet what words they do utter are just as bad . Sadly many sheeple like yourself march to the tune and sing along for a bigger more oppressive less free future under a big brother knows best cloud. The 2nd amendment is the second amendment because if we the people can not shed the yoke of a corrupt oppressive govt than we are doomed to become like china , and be like the slaves of the state the chinese people are.
      You would scoff at my words and thus ignore history and the evil of authoritarian corruption our govt has at it’s core like a cancer all such corrupt govts suffer . Remember one of our founding fathers said ; “He whom sells their freedom for security deserves neither”. And here we are.

      1. “Jeff as usual you miss the margin again. Machine guns are not banned…they are very strictly curtailed”

        I wonder if anyone remains believing any data from Jeff. He is wrong on most things. A flip of a coin is a better predictor than Jeff’s word.

        1. Jeff relies on a warped narrative where facts can be twisted , obfuscated or ignored as needed. I live in a state which allows ownership of automatic arms – machineguns to the layman. Have many friends that collect and own such. Never a finer bunch of American citizens or people to befriend. The left in America is knee jerk about anything that trips their triggers. Racism , Guns , their way or no way. The absolute intolerance of the left in America is palpable and cancerous to America. This drive for “more rights (?)” at the cost of constitutional rights is devious , selfish and guaranteed to divide and destroy America. For example there is no right anywhere in the constitution about Abortion. Never was nor should be. Yet a political party wears abortion like a constitutional banner to murder babies in their most vulnerable stage in life. Yet go absolute bonkers over a school shooting that kills children…the very children they would have aborted proudly had they made that decision….. that’s hypocrisy 101. We either treat all children/babies as precious life or we become morally bankrupt and become the arbitrator of death by selfish decree if it so suits us.
          Todays govt won’t spend $5 billion on a border wall , but will spend $40 billion plus in weaponry to include machineguns to a corruptly run country in a proxy war with another declining power. Our govt is playing with us like a cat plays with a mouse.

      2. This needs to be repeated for the people in the back, like Jeffrey:

        “A few days ago groomer schumer filibustered a bill proposed to address mental health and school security in this nation…but the dem and swamp narrative would never allow that.”

        What this means is the Schumer, Pelosi and Dems care MORE about not letting Repub’s get a “win” than trying to move quickly to do something, anything, for the mental health and safety of our school children. Dem policitians like Schumer are pure filth.

      3. Phergus,

        It’s baffling that you and I share a country and yet have absolutely nothing in common. We could not be more different. In my entire life, I cannot recall personally ever encountering anyone who thinks as you do. I hope I never will.

    3. Jeff, mass-shooting deaths are a tiny fraction of all homicides. Americans own guns, in part, because they want some protection from all the other types of homicides.

      America is not like most Anglophone countries. We have exceptionally high levels of crime and mental illness, and your guys won’t stop the flow of criminals and drugs across the southern border that drives a significant portion of that violence. To some extent, we’re more like Mexico than New Zealand. Mexico has far-stricter gun laws than you’re asking for, and it’s an undeclared civil war down there with the gangs and cartels. New Zealand never had high levels of gun homicides, even though they had loose gun laws.

      And banning AR- ad AK-style guns won’t prevent a determined madman from getting them.

        1. Ok, your argument is thus: if banning specific weapons is ineffective or even counterproductive, why would we ban any weapons? Your point is that that argument is absurd and not accepted by most Americans. Most Americans support the proscription of certain classes of weapons and believe it is prudent.

          Actually, I would concede that most Americans do want some weapons proscribed, rightly or wrongly.

          Now let’s proceed to my rebuttal. AR-style guns account for a very small percentage of gun homicides. Pistols account for the great majority of gun crimes. Banning AR-style weapons will not prevent the great majority of gun homicides, so…

          Your argument really should be any weapon that does not have demonstrable utility should be banned so that we can reduce gun violence. You obviously support banning AR’s. Do you support the banning of pistols in private hands?

          1. Diogenes says:

            “Most Americans support the proscription of certain classes of weapons and believe it is prudent.”

            But the NRA’s ARGUMENTS do NOT logically allow ANY weapon to be proscribed! That is my point. NO weapon kills people, ONLY bad people kill. Therefore, it follows that ALL weapons should be available. ALL.

            Do you accept that argument? I don’t.

            The NRA argues that if the government takes weapons out of the hands of good people, bad people will still get their hands on them. Therefore, the government must allow good people to get their hands on ANY weapon a bad person can get their hands on lest the good are outgunned by the bad.

            Do you accept that argument? I don’t.

            And answer me this- don’t good people with guns turn bad?

            If you believe that certain weapons should be proscribed, tell me on what basis? Could it be that some weapons are just to lethal?

            1. RE: “If you believe that certain weapons should be proscribed, tell me on what basis?,,,,” My position has nothing to with weapons. Has to do with those who possess them and the criteria upon which society gives them leave to. The 2nd Amendment can be argued from pillar to post with respect to that issue. My position will continue to hold that the fabric of present day culture and society in this country has evolved to the point where experience has shown us that NOT everyone has the right to nor should possess and use firearms. That there are extenuating circumstances particular to certain individuals which point to the fact that they are not entitled to enjoy the heavy responsibility which accompanies that right. There must be consensus on what an individual must bring to the table in order to be deemed qualified and competent in that theatre, and a process by which that will be assured. Right to privacy issues are at the heart of the crux of the matter. They must be resolved such that once consensus is reached regarding qualification and competency,, unrestricted full disclosure of background can be obtained with respect to an individual meeting the criteria established. Until such time, Innocent people will continue to die as a result of guns finding their way into the wrong hands. When it comes to the lawless in that regard, responsible firearms owners, and responsible legislators, will have to explore ways to find a remedy. The cry, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” is often a battle cry. We ought not to outlaw guns, but rather the manner in which outlaws obtain them. As long as there is a persuasive argument that any attempt at controls constitutes a clear and present danger to the preservation of this Constitutional Republic as presently constituted, a so called ‘Give me liberty or give me death’ mindset, the status quo will prevail. We will be obliged never to forget to kiss our loved ones every time we part from them, for it might be the last kiss.

              1. ZZdoc says:

                “If you believe that certain weapons should be proscribed, tell me on what basis?,,,,” My position has nothing to with weapons.”

                In other words, there should be ABSOLUTELY NO prohibition on ANY weapon being sold to *good* people, be they fully automatic weapons, RPG’s, etc. Because as we know, weapons cannot kill people, bad people do.

                Thus, you are concerned ONLY with ensuring that weapons of any kind do not fall into the hands of *bad* people.

                Do good people ever turn bad?

                1. Once consensus has been reached as I’ve suggested, then the question as to ‘what weapons’? can be addressed/

                2. RE:”””“If you believe that certain weapons should be proscribed, tell me on what basis?,,,….”” One more thought on this matter. The 2nd Amendment does not speak to the type and nature of arms that one has the right to bear, only that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ If you continue to mix apples and oranges in your conversations, you’ll succeed in making about as much progress in your conversations in these matters as the current promulgated laws and rulings of the Supreme Court have made up until now. In the end, children are still being murdered. Yes, good people do turn bad, but nothing short of a total ban on possession is going to prevent them from doing damage with the constellation of weapons your offer in your comment. Australia’s experience has shown, that there are other options open to them. To reiterate, if and when it’s ever decided who is entitled, it can be decided to what they are entitled. Having succeeded in the former, cooler heads might be successful in achieving the latter. Here’s an analysis of Australia’s experience:

                  1. ZZdoc,

                    Scalia conceded in his Heller opinion:

                    “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

                    The reason gun advocates do not wish to talk about guns, I explained here:


                    1. RE: “Scalia conceded in his Heller opinion:…..” I am familiar with Scalia’s opinion in this case. I have given you my opinion as to why laws are hamstrung with respect to the mentally ill when privacy laws restrict full access to complete history where individuals are known to mental health providers or law enforcement. The Stoneman-Douglas perpetrator as example. He had a sordid history but was able to be in possession of the age of 18.

                    2. ZZdoc,

                      You have avoided giving me your opinion whether ANY weapons ARE, IN FACT, too dangerous to be in the hands of even GOOD people!

                      Currentsitguy says NO kind of weapon should be prohibited to buyers who are not felons or mentally ill. He believes that no weapon is too lethal or dangerous unless handled by a bad person.

                      Do you agree?

                    3. RE: “””You have avoided giving me your opinion whether ANY weapons ARE, IN FACT, too dangerous to be in the hands of even GOOD people!……Your tactics, in your conversations with anyone of us, is to beat a dead horse as well as to insult, deprecate, and demean individuals whose philosophies are inconsistent with yours. You are, in word, intolerant. Your agenda, for me, is irrelevant, You apparently have one, and is not conducive to the constructive exchange of ideas, the purpose for which this platform was created.. Nor do I care to continue to serve it. If you have not yet discerned where I might stand on the 2nd Amendment issue, and the question you put, I’ll leave you to continue to wonder. I’ll be pleased to enlarge on that when the laws protecting the privacy of individuals who have been referred for mental health services or who have had contact with law enforcement are lifted, and unlimited access and disclosure can be had, so society can determine who is qualified and competent to possess and use ‘arms’ consistent with the 2nd Amendment, as currently interpreted and accepted by most. If that kind of legislation can be fleshed out and passed one can move on to discussing the other matter. As well when H.R. 4568 comes out of committee and is passed. Until then, I’m done with this topic and your incessant and purposeless gaming.;

                    4. ZZdoc,

                      As I expected, I knew you would not address my question. Few gun advocates will ever acknowledge that a weapon could be too dangerous even in the hands of good people. Once you concede that, your absolutist position is finished.

                      I’m not opposed to augmenting and reinforcing mental health screening, but that topic is a diversion from a discussion of the lethalness of weaponry. I take it that you believe that fully automatic machine guns, RPG’s, etc., should NOT be restricted for sale so long as the buyer is not a felon or mentally impaired.

                      So far Currentsitguy is the only honest gun advocate on this blog, for he said the quiet part out loud, namely, there are NO arms which are too dangerous for good people to own.

                    5. RE:””As I expected, I knew you would not address my question……” Talk to the hand!!

                    6. RE:”” Just like a Trumpist!!” Thank you!! Your response is precisely why I characterized you as I have.

                3. “ Do good people ever turn bad?”

                  So reality imitates art now? We have reached the “Pre-Crime” level?

            2. I happen to think the current proscriptions are acceptable, so the NRA’s position is not material to me or to the status quo. The VP wants to ban AR-type guns, as do you. I want to keep the status quo. I don’t see the point of banning these rifles because they were previously banned, and the ban had no substantial impact on gun violence. That’s why the ban was lifted. That means to me they are not too lethal. You will disagree, I know, but we are not really talking about weapons of mass destruction here.

              Pistols are the weapons of choice for the vast majority of murderers. Either start the ban there or don’t talk about banning anything. I would suggest dropping the subject.

              1. Diogenes,

                I hope you are drunk from your dinner party so I can get some truth out of you!

                You are still avoiding my constant question:

                On what basis do you believe that AR-type weaponry “are not too lethal” as you state?
                What weapons ARE too lethal?

                1. My list of weapons that should at least require a federal license: atom bombs, sarin gas, mustard gas, fully-automatic machine guns, fully-automatic submachine guns, MOAB’s, armored vehicles, howitzers, anti-tank missiles, I could go on. These all are either banned or require a federal license. I have no problem with that.

                  Your leaders will not talk about banning pistols. You might, but they won’t because they know it would backfire. I support the private ownership of pistols and they don’t, but they won’t come out and say so. All this talk about banning assault weapons is just a fundraising stunt. They don’t really want to address gun violence because they won’t address pistols.

                  1. You will concede that there is fund-raising on BOTH sides! Apart from that, I will talk about handguns. While I no more agree that the 2nd Amendment confers an individualized fight to bear arms than you agree that the 14th Amendment implies a right of privacy for a women to control her body, I have no problem with the selling of hand guns and rifles under reasonable conditions. I’m more interested in regulating the amount of ammunition.

                    I guess the alcohol is loosening your inhibitions because you PARTIALLY answered my question. However, I asked upon what BASIS you believe that “fully-automatic machine guns, fully-automatic submachine guns” should be treated differently? Because don’t you know that guns don’t kill people, but only bad people do? Do fully-automatic machine guns and fully-automatic submachine guns kill people WITHOUT being handled by a person?

                    1. They make the distinction between fully automatic versus semiautomatic because many hunting rifles are magazine-fed semiautomatics, which from an operational standpoint, are indistinguishable from semiautomatic AR-type rifles. Banning AR’s would simply be a cosmetic distinction and banning all semiautomatics would engender a lot more political resistance.

                      Restricting magazine size by law for all semiautomatics would be a more sensible debate than making distinctions between different semiautomatic rifles (but it would still encounter resistance).

                      Now you might say you support restricting magazine size and ask me if I support it, too. Well, I’m not going to respond to that question because Kamala has made this about banning AR-type semiautomatics, not about magazine size. Get her to ask the question and I’ll answer it.

                    2. The only one of you who has given me a straight answer is Currentsitguy, bless his heart:


                      Do you agree with your fellow gun advocate?
                      If you don’t wish to be put on the spot to publicly answer my question, then say so as you did about restricting magazine size. I can respect that, but don’t continue to evade addressing my question WHY you believe that Tommy guns and RPG’s, for instance, should be restricted unlike semi-automatic weapons.

            3. Jeff to Diogenes: “But the NRA’s ARGUMENTS do NOT logically allow ANY weapon to be proscribed! ”

              Because Jeff lacks the innate ability to answer himself, he utilizes line drawing, a skill lawyers are good at, but something that is not a replacement for critical thinking skills.

              Eventually, he will dally in personal ownership of nuclear weapons. It is the issue where he will ultimately hang his hat due to a lack of knowledge and ability.

              Two feuding neighbors purchase nuclear weapons that threaten the entire area, but the Constitution says it is proper. That is not true. Other rights are involved requiring restrictions.

              How does one Constitutionally create a restriction? It is up to those wishing to abridge the 2nd Amendment to show and prove harm while their solutions do not make things worse.

              Using the data presented by another on the blog, Alabama had one violent firearms death. Jeff proposes that all firearms be banned even though we can show more benefit than the one life lost. Of course, Jeff will scream that one life is worth all the existing gold. At that point, sane people will realize that he is a nutcase.

              1. RE:”Jeff will scream that one life is worth all the existing gold. At that point, sane people will realize that he is a nutcase……………” Welcome to my world. I have ceased to entertain his miscellaneous ramblings. May I suggest that you, as well, turn to testing your rapier on a more worthy adversary?

                1. ZZ, there is a need to light Jeff up, so his folly is revealed to all.

                  1. RE:”ZZ, there is a need to light Jeff up, so his folly is revealed to all.” “Choose your fiction. I’ll endorse it!”

              2. Thanks, Alan. Trying to understand what Jeff is up to is like the old joke, “nailing Jello to a tree.”

                1. Diogenes, be prepared that he or his minions are going to Turley and claim that you want to crucify J. Some of these nuts have fallen far from the tree, losing the ability to distinguish reality from fantasy.

                2. RE:” Trying to understand what Jeff is up to is like the old joke, “nailing Jello to a tree.”……” In that regard I’m reminded of the classic dessert slogan….”There’s always room for Jell-o” Were that it not true here.

          2. Diogenes,

            I don’t blame you if you decide not to directly answer my questions. Because once you concede that certain weapons ARE, IN FACT, too dangerous to be in the hands of even GOOD people, you have lost the debate. Then the discussion will become which particular weapons/gun clips/ammunition fall into the category of too dangerous. That’s a matter of public opinion, isn’t it? And for that very reason, gun advocates never want to shift the debate to public opinion since the majority of the public is against them.

            1. Sorry, Jeff, I had a dinner party and couldn’t respond immediately. My response is now added to your earlier post.

    4. You are absolutely correct. Government should have no role or say whatsoever in the purchase or ownership of weapons of any kind barring felony conviction or being judged incompetent by medical examination.

      1. Currentsitguy,

        At least you are honest unlike most gun advocates. That is the logical result of your arguments. Which is why the majority of Americans believe you are nuts.

        1. Point to me the exception clause in the Bill of Rights for 2nd Amendment. If substituting 1st Amendment in any restriction doesn’t make sense then it is Unconstitutional on its face.

        2. RE: ” Which is why the majority of Americans believe you are nuts……” I expect that your are satisfied in your critique of the writer and your opinion as to what most Americans think. Do support your contention that most Americans would not favor laws prohibiting access to firearms by individuals with felony convictions or being judged incompetent by medical examination. Where’s the data to that effect? Conversations arising out of this week’s tragedy once again suggest that such prohibitions are precisely what has been sought, and has yet to be enacted, the language of the Second Amendment notwithstanding.

        3. Jeff, I guess we’re getting somewhere. You and currentsitguy think the distinction between full auto and semi auto is effectively meaningless. I concede that at close ranges, the distinction is not very meaningful. Current argues that the lack of a real distinction means neither should be banned and you think it means both should be banned.

          If you forced me to choose, I would side with currentsitguy. Why? Semi-automatic rifles actually account for a very small percentage of gun homicides. If banning semiautomatic rifles ever made a big difference in gun violence, I might agree with you, but the real violence lies in other classes of firearms, but I don’t support banning those other classes (pistols and revolvers) because many are bought for the very real utility of self-protection. I will never fully trust the government to protect me in all situations.

          The distinction between semi auto and full auto is somewhat arbitrary, but your ding-dong of a VP is not calling for banning all semi-automatics. She’s focused on AR’s because this is more about fundraising than actually addressing the problem of gun violence.

          I guess you could still argue that AR-sporting rifles should be banned because, while they don’t contribute the vast majority of gun deaths, they actually offer little utility while being dangerous.

          But utility is in the eye of the beholder. Alcohol consumption has little real utility and certainly contributes to all types of deaths every year, and yet we repealed 18th Amendment because alcohol has some intangible utility to many people. So does sporting rifles–by the millions. That’s why we lifted the AR sporting rifle ban.

          1. Diogenes,

            I appreciate your reply and your time in continuing this discussion unlike ZZdoc who bolted while ducking my question.

            I’m not necessarily against banning AR-style weapons. I’m simply trying to debunk bogus NRA arguments. I would like you to concede that some weapons ARE too dangerous to be in the hands of the general public even if they pass a background check. I want you to recognize that the argument that “guns don’t kill people, people do” would not limit ANY weapon whatsoever. Currentsitguy buys this argument, ZZdoc would not answer.

            Where do you stand on that proposition?

            1. Some weapons are too dangerous to own by private citizens? Would it alarm you that private citizens own fully automatic mini-guns, artillery, and fully function tanks? Heard of any cities being shelled by artillery, or assaulted by citizen owned tanks? Sorry – its YOUR argument that doesn’t hold water.

              1. Yes, I’ve been to an estate in Portola Valley, Ca., many years ago to be surprised to see tanks arrayed around the property.


                I’m not aware that these tanks had live ammunition though. Be that as it may, I take it that you believe that fully automatic machine guns, RPG’s, etc., should be made available to anyone above the age of 18 after a background check.

                Got it. That makes Currentsitguy and you so far who have taken this absolutist position. Diogenes does not and ZZdoc refuses to say.

                1. One can own a tank or a machine gun, but it has to be licensed by the Federal government. The feds MIGHT make an exception if the tank or machine gun is “demilled” (short for demilitarized), in other words, the guns are damaged so that they can never shoot, but I’m not certain about that exception. Too lazy to look it up because I’m not looking to buy a tank 😉

            2. I agree that some weapons are too dangerous for private hands. I doubt anybody would be successful trying to convince the public otherwise.

              1. Let me qualify that a bit. Some weapons are too dangerous for private hands, other weapons are too dangerous to not be licensed, and the rest are covered by the 2nd Amendment.

              2. Thank you for your honesty. I wasn’t sure you had it in you. I stand corrected.

                I agree some weapons are too dangerous for the public which debunks the argument that “weapons don’t kill people, people do” since if that were true, it would not matter how dangerous the weapons are, they would still be harmless.

                It remains to be seen which weapons the majority of the public in different jurisdictions consider too dangerous. If it were up to me, I would raise 50 billion dollars in a private/public partnership to buy back 10 million AR-style weapons by offering $5000/gun. No redneck would turn down that scratch or at least his wife wouldn’t! Ban the sale of AR-type guns for ten years once again just to see if mass shootings decline. Meanwhile, use that 10 years to harden tens of thousands of elementary, secondary and collegiate schools, train and hire thousands more mental health professionals and, most important of all, fan out and teach that ol’ time religion to all those amoral gangbangers the Republicans firmly believe don’t know right from wrong.

                Ok, I’ll compromise and make it 5 years.

                1. Agreed, Jeff. And if there had to be a step down, or step up, program to get there the obvious points of focus would be: kid gets in trouble hurting animals = lifetime ban; use of data for crissakes…, can’t rent a car til 25 ditto for Ar’s. How about getting with the studios to limit pumping of “tacticool” projects? Nationalized medicine so if a kid gets flagged early for preemptive therapy they can actually go.

                  And revamp education so It’s not such a warehouse for daytime child care. Some kids thrive in the current structure, some find it torture.

                  And wowzers take a look at making Ar’s range weapons, only being able to get ammo to be fired there. They’re either thrill weapons or ambush weapons for the suicidal to take a bunch of people with them. Let’s openly scorn and laugh at the complete abstraction that they protect someone from a tyrannical government.


                  1. I agree with everything you added. I had thought as well that the government could build lots of firing ranges so that people could play with their tools there and only buy ammunition there as well. Kinda like buying a bucket of balls at the golf range!

                    1. I even like the idea of naming the range PLAY WITH YOUR TOOL!!!


                2. “I agree some weapons are too dangerous for the public which debunks the argument that “weapons don’t kill people, people do” since if that were true, it would not matter how dangerous the weapons are, they would still be harmless.” …
                  “Ban the sale of AR-type guns for ten years once again just to see if mass shootings decline. “

                  Why does an agreement exist that nuclear weapons not be owned by individuals? It is not because the Second Amendment disappears. It is because where a nuclear device is concerned, that right conflicts with other constitutional issues and the general welfare of Americans as a group. There is a conflict of rights. Therefore one must prove that abridging the 2nd Amendment has a defense that meets Constitutional requirements.

                  Abridging the Second Amendment requires substantial proof that one constitutional issue supersedes another. Because the Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, even a higher standard is required.

                  The left wishes to invade Second Amendment rights. That is reasonable, especially when considering things like weapons of mass destruction. The dispute over the Second Amendment is not due to the inflexibility of conservatives, who, for the most part, are flexible. The left is the problem because it refuses to live within the bounds of the Constitution and the Second Amendment. The left wishes to invade Constitutional rights at will. That is a dangerous and suicidal idea.

                  It is up to Jeff to prove removal of the AR-15 is evidence-based compared to other risks. If he cannot do that, he has no case, and the question he continually asks is meritless.

                  1. Would someone rational please make sense of Meyer’s nonsense?

                    1. Sergeant Schultz, what I said is clear enough. If one is a lawyer, one should have more than enough knowledge to understand what was said. You don’t. You don’t even try. That goes along with your I know nothing routine.

                  2. It is up to Jeff to prove removal of the AR-15 is evidence-based compared to other risks………………””” the use of a Colt AR-15 rifle in the Port Arthur massacre, the worst single-person shooting incident in Australian history, the country enacted the National Firearms Agreement in 1996, restricting the private ownership of semi-automatic rifles. (Category D[99]).[100][101][102]
                    As a result of the Christchurch mosque shootings with an AR-15 during Friday Prayer on 15 March 2019, the New Zealand government enacted a law to ban semi-automatic firearms, magazines, and parts that can be used to assemble prohibited firearms.[103][104]
                    After the 2020 Nova Scotia attacks, the deadliest rampage by a single person in Canadian history,[105] Canada banned a class of rifles, including the AR-15.[106][107]””” I’m providing a link for a reference to Australia. New Zealand and Canada are far to recent to be able to provide statistically significant data. Australia’s ‘NFA” does not carve out AR-15 type rifles. New Zealand and Canada are more specific. This contribution is not to be construed as reflecting a personal opinion on either side of the issue. Any attempt to extrapolate the Australian data to justify, support or defend a personal point of view will be regarded in the light of the well worn ‘tale told by an idiot’.

                3. OK, I get it Jeff. We are justified in depriving the rights of an estimated 20 million AR-15 owners of their Constitutional rights which by the way specifically sets forth “shall not be infringed” because 0.00000006% of the population use it to commit mess murders. If you get that passed I am going to sue the government to seize all vehicles because 0.00001% of citizen’s use cars to murder people and as an assist for other crimes. I have a lot better chance of getting that passed than you do gun seizures with that argument. Next I am going after alcohol and knife manufacturers.

                  1. Brian,

                    By your logic, no weapon should be banned- not fully automatic machine guns, RPG’s, etc. BTW, automatic switch blades and stilletos are banned in many places.

                    1. Nothing like an ad hominem attack to signal “I have no counterargument.”

                    2. By my logic individual citizens should be given the greatest freedoms allowed. By your logic we should treat the vast majority by the lowest common denominator. The problem with you Jeff is you do NOTHING to fix the root cause. If total bans really worked we wouldn’t have an opioid overdose epidemic. Inanimate objects, be they guns, knives, baseball bats, 2x4s, rope, chain, or… in one case here in Georgia, an automobile water pump, (pick your weapon) are amoral. Banning an inanimate object dies nothing to fix the person, or the underlying socio-pathologies driving criminal psychopathy.

                      According to a Secret Service analysis of school shooters 91% had mental health issues with 69% presenting with psychological issues and 57% presenting behavioral issues. 71% came from broken homes. 54% had siblings or parents who had been incarcerated. Think there is a connection there?

                      Tell me / how does depriving the 99.9999994% of the responsible population of a Constitutional right address these underlying pathologies? The answer is they DON’T and deep down inside you KNOW they don’t. And, if you are educated on the subject you KNOW from the history of opioids in America and gun bans in Australia and Britain, gun bans ultimately don’t reduce violent crime. Hell Britain imposed a KNIFE BAN for crying out loud.

                      So what is your motivation Jeff? Really – what is your motivation?


                    3. Brian says:

                      “Banning an inanimate object does nothing to fix the person, or the underlying socio-pathologies driving criminal psychopathy.”

                      I agree. We should “fix” people. You say:

                      “By my logic, individual citizens should be given the greatest freedoms allowed.”

                      I’ll put you down with Currentsitguy as not wanting to ban ANY weapon of war in the hands of citizens. Got it.

                    4. Jeff.

                      If you take. Hornady 147 grain, 6.5 caliber match bullet and launch it out of a sniper rifle at 2700 feet per second, over its 1000 yd flight it will drop 306 inches. In a 10 mph wind from the left, it will drift 33 inches to the right. Due to a phenomenon called “spin drift” it will further drift to the right another five inches in a right hand twist barrel or five inches back to the left in a left hand twist barrel. It will hit the target at 1553 feet per second with a force of 737 ft/lbs – the equivalent of being hit with a 737 lb weight dropped from one foot. At ranges beyond 1000 yds you have to begin compensating for the rotation of the Earth due to the difference in rotation speeds between the shooter’s position and the target’s position.

                      How do I know all of this? I teach long range precision shooting on the weekends.

                      Imagine talking with two of your friends and suddenly “THWAPP!” You friend lurches suddenly simultaneous with blood and tissue being ejected out of his chest. By the time you recover from the initial shock you realize you have no idea of where the shot came from or which direction of where to run and hide. Someone with my skills could cause a lot of terror and carnage – BUT YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR FROM ME. Why?

                      Because I grew up in a nuclear family with two loving parents who taught me right from wrong, personal discipline, to extend empathy to others and see them as mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters who have hopes and dreams and people they love and people who would greatly grieve their loss. They taught me to see others as HUMANS rather than mere resources to get what I want or nothing more than obstacles to be removed (as career criminals and school shooters see others). They taught me how to compromise and settle differences in a civil manner without resorting to violence. They modeled and taught me how to accept disappointments and channel frustration into productive activities.

                      And for that reason – that I was brought up in a healthy environment which rendered me “well-adjusted” – you can trust me with a G.A. custom precision rifle, a machine gun, explosives, fighter jets and yes, nuclear bombs.

                      And that sir is why your approach will never solve the crime problem – you don’t understand humans. Your approach doesn’t address the human element leaving you with no “viable” recourse but to punish the law abiding and take away their possessions – possessions responsibly owned and lawfully used, because of a minuscule few, brought up in broken, unloving homes, who resort to violence as a means of crying out for help. That sir is an injustice.

                      And this is the problem with progressives. The end result of their policies is to ultimately punish taxpayers for being model, law abiding citizens while never addressing the root cause of the problem that triggered that punishment.

                    5. Brian,

                      I got it. You and Currentsitguy are adamant that the government should permit good people to get their hands on ANY weapon of war. ‘Nuff said.

                    6. jeffsilberman, I’m a retired scientist so I have time for this inanity and ignorance of matters scientific; natural sciences that is. I know physics, geology and climatology better than biology or advanced chemistry.

                    7. If I am correct you are an electrical engineer turned computer sciences professor since they had to rely on other disciplines to fill the openings. I don’t know precisely when you entered the computer science division but that would mean your hands on experience with physics and other things would be limited. In your debates with John, you have not followed through on the math or physics. You point to individual occurrences but are unable to tie them together.

                      Would you like to correct me?


                    8. If being in computer sciences makes you a scientist

                      Then I am a scientist.

                      It doesn’t.

                    9. RE:””, I’m a retired scientist….” Welcome to the world of the Dark Triad. Continue to play his silly game. You’ll catch on eventually.

                    10. David B Benson says: June 1, 2022 at 6:44 PM
                      Brian Wilson, re: yours of Jun 01 @ 6:02 pm

                      The unit of force is ft-lbs, not ft/lbs. Tch, tch

                      Force is defined as (mass) * (acceleration) = kg * (meters/seconds² ) = Newton = N
                      Work is defined as (Force) * (distance) = N * meters = Nm OR Joules
                      Energy also has the SI unit of Joules

                      ft-lbs is an obsolete, imprecise unit used in Engineering that measures Work or Energy.
                      See Wiki: It has not been used in the physical sciences in decades. The SI units were adopted globally in the 1990s as the standard units for the physical sciences so that scientists could communicate in one standard system of measurements.

                      Anonymous says: June 1, 2022 at 9:48 PM
                      If I am correct you are an electrical engineer turned computer sciences professor since they had to rely on other disciplines to fill the openings.

                      Correct. See the following WSU article that paints a vivid picture of Benson’s persona back in 1980.

                      Professor Turley’s political insight is for me, as a nonlawyer, political refugee who fled Communism, a voice of sanity. The trolling on here lessens the blog. The only reason I reply to Benson is because he insults others with condescension, under the rubric of science.

                      ZZDoc says: June 2, 2022 at 1:41 AM
                      RE:””, I’m a retired scientist….” Welcome to the world of the Dark Triad. Continue to play his silly game. You’ll catch on eventually.

                      Congrats. You have caught on.

                    11. RE:” Congrats. You have caught on…..” Pathognomonic for it. Piece of cake.

  13. These fools like Harris can’t seem to understand that assault weapons, whatever that is, are already banned for public use. A simple hunting rifle, that is semiautomatic, would have been just as deadly because, well hate to break it to the likes of her, they are the same thing. A revolver is a form of semiautomatic too. Any gun the loads the next round after firing one is a semiautomatic. BTW no army of any country takes the Ar-15 seriously for battle, so how can this gun be a assault weapon? It’s a convenient and entirely made up name to make the rifle fearsome.

    Also about the same time as the Texas shooting was a woman with a pistol who took down a guy about ready to kill dozens with that mysterious assault riffle. Major media did not care, it would ruin their ban guns rhetoric,. If we used guards or armed teachers, my god their gravy train of death would end and they can’t have that.

    Instead of blaming the semiautomatic rifles why don’t we try to understand why since the 1980s these events happen. Before that time kids brought guns to show and tell and gun clubs were normal after school programs. Why the sudden change? Could it be a correlation of anti depression drugs being handed out lik candy? Seems like a good place to start, but again that ruins the agenda to removing the 2a and oh wait it’s another pharma money maker.

    1. So is this now the Biden administration position, or just the VP’s “personal opinion”? In any event, it is nothing more than a political posture, since there are not 60 votes for it in the Senator and even if passed would quickly be challenged and likely found unconstitutional.

    2. Was going to say the same – sorry, Kamala, but assault weapons are already illegal. Fire a shotgun, a 45, and an AR-15 one after the other and see which is the weakest. Oh, and common pistols like the 45 and 9 mm are also semi-automatic weapons.

      Though the Uvalde killer was an exception due to a broken home and being 18, I’d sure love to know how the rest, who were minors presumably under parental supervision, acquired their guns, ammo, and desire to fatally harm other people.

    3. “Guards or armed teachers” are the protection of last resort. Nineteen fully armed cops wearing body armor were afraid to interact with this teenager who had a classroom full of hostages. The only way to minimize deaths is with protective architecture. Walk down Pennsylvania Ave, the thoroughfare in Washington DC that connects the White House to the Capitol. You’ll see every federal building – FBI, DOJ, IRS…..all have huge cement planters along their exterior. And it’s not for the greenery. It’s to prevent car bombers from getting close to the buildings. I’m on the 7th floor of one of those buildings and have “bomb blast” windows that were installed over the original glass windows following 9/11. We should do as much for our children as we do for ordinary civil servants! Install steel doors and bullet proof glass. In the Sandy Hook case the door was locked but the shooter gained entry by shooting out a glass panel next to the door and reaching in. Did nobody think that could happen? All the vague talk of more mental health services is unrealistic. Let’s focus on preventing or at least substantially slowing entry into the schools!

  14. Monday is Memorial Day so for this weekend in spite of the hardships this administration is causing to Americans I’ll turn my thoughts elsewhere. I’ll place my thought and prayer for those men and women who have continually sacrificed for Americans and saved us from this type of administration. God Bless the men and women who in the past have kept us free and protected that document which has protected those God given rights we (for now) enjoy.

  15. Typically, Ms Harris ignores the job that she was given (the southern border) and focuses on what is popular with the lefties.

    Ms Harris is one of the more incompetent politicians out there.

    In addition, she has shown that she is remarkably stupid.

Comments are closed.

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: