According to Gallup’s latest polling, support for a handgun ban has fallen to just 20 percent and support for an “assault weapons” ban has cratered to just 52 percent. Gun bans were a constant call from both President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris over the last four years. President Biden often combined the call with dubious factual, legal, and historical arguments.
I previously wrote 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.
Yet, the 2024 campaign showed a belated recognition that the Administration has failed to galvanize public opinion in support of gun limits and bans.
Harris came under fire during the campaign when she suddenly seemed to embrace one of the very guns that she previously vilified as it became clear that she was too far left from much of the country.
Years ago, I wrote that the rise in gun ownership in the United States, including among minority gun owners, was strikingly out of sync with the Democratic talking point.
In 2019, support for an assault weapons ban stood at 61%. It is now barely at a majority.
The drop in support for a handgun ban is notable in that only 33 percent of Democrats support such a ban.
The rise in gun ownership and the drop in polling raise another issue where Democratic candidates seem to be speaking to an increasingly empty room. The gun ownership rates are a problem for the party because most political issues do not involve a large personal investment by citizens. When someone becomes a gun owner, they spend hundreds of dollars on the weapon, ammunition, and other costs. The ban campaigns become more of a personal and financial issue for them.
Harris’s attempt to appeal to gun owners fell flat after years of calling for limits and bans. The question is whether the party is ready to pivot on this and other issues — and whether it can given its political base. That 33 percent is the core voting block in primaries even as the rest of the country moves toward the center of the political spectrum.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
60% of suicides are done with a gun. That means mental illness needs more attention and then gun violence will go way down!
Trent,
Or we could keep it tidy and use the Canadian approach. Help with suicide in Canada is almost as easy as ordering a pizza and there are no loud noises or unsightly messes. Where there is a will there is a way and in the EU and Canada the government is often there to help.
And would it not be a hoot if suicide were legal in the US, for a suicide center to run a discount special right after a Republican victory in the Presidential race!
Floyd, You made me laugh. But it would probably end up like the airlines eager to help celebs leave the country…empty.
On the other hand, a lot of DOJ and FBI staffers may fill the seats on departing flights.
“On the other hand, a lot of DOJ and FBI staffers may fill the seats on departing flights.”
I wouldn’t discourage that slime from queuing up in the assisted suicide line…
/sarc (I hope)
Turley– “support for a handgun ban has fallen to just 20 percent…”
+++
What did they expect?
Those supporting gun bans first said ‘the police will protect you’ and then said “f#$% the police and then said defund the police and then said prosecute the police.”
Then people began to think “maybe we need to protect ourselves. Maybe we need a gun.”
Unintended consequences are not always unforeseeable consequences. Perhaps that is one of the reasons we have a Second Amendment…the foreseeable.
Young,
I read a number of articles, after the defund the police movement and the subsequent uptick in crime and response times slowed to hours if at all, a number of people who never owned guns were buying guns. Most of them were minorities and women. All for the “maybe we need to protect ourselves. Maybe we need a gun.”
Thank you Democrats!
Upstate,
Yes, people I know who were anti-gun in the past surprised me by buying one when the Dems started dismantling civil society. That includes friends who are ‘minorities’. I am beginning to hate the word ‘minorities’. I prefer Americans.
“Those supporting gun bans first said ‘the police will protect you’ ”
In a way they have done us a favor. The police rarely directly protect anyone from violence, if that happens, it is a side-effect – that is not their job. The job is to investigate crimes after the fact and arrest the culprits in such a way as not to impair the probability of convictions. Anyone who thought that the primary job of the police was to protect them in real time was quite deluded.
“Anyone who thought that the primary job of the police was to protect them in real time was quite deluded.”
True. Professor Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit sometimes points out that the role of the police is to protect the criminals from us.
The Old West vigilantes weren’t strong on due process but they could be effective when law enforcement was absent or corrupt. They hanged corrupt Sheriff Plummer and annoying Jack Slade in Virginia City, Montana for example.
Though wrong, I can’t entirely smother the hope that Gaetz goes a bit vigilante on a lot of the DOJ. They are the modern Sheriff Plummers and a remedy is needed.
@Young
When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
I had a situation that could have gone bad.
Lets just say that the sound of a 12ga auto loader at 5:00am in the dead quiet morning… gets the bad guy’s attention.
No shots fired and the Deputy was only 8 min away at a speed trap. Town is 25min away.
-G
Ian,
Great story and great outcome!
As a supporter of all constitutional rights, from 2nd Amendment gun rights to 14th Amendment rights protecting women, minority groups and LGBT folks.
Most Republicans support minimal regulation of every other right except 2nd Amendment rights. So what do you expect?
Americans are required to have a driver’s license to operate an automobile and to operate it while sober. Some states even temporarily revoke those licenses for unpaid fines or permanently revoke licenses due to competency.
If government can regulate automobile drivers, we can’t regulate weapons designed for war? The “Heller” U.S. Supreme Court ruling guarantees that law abiding gun owners can never lose their gun rights, but all constitutional rights can be regulated. Republicans support that concept.
No we don’t
Walk down Memory Lane.
George W. Bush and most Republicans nationwide blatantly violated the 1st and 14th Amendment rights of Americans for offenses like:
* Playing Paint Ball while black or brown – those Americans were blacklisted as “terror suspects” during the Bush years.
White guys never received that same treatment.
* Photographing Bridges or prominent buildings while black or brown – blacklisted as “terror suspects”. White guys didn’t
receive that same treatment.
* Bush Department of Justice tried to purge (fire) Liberals, Democrats and anyone not sufficiently loyal to Bush working in
the DOJ – Monica Goodling Affair. To avoid potential prison time, Goodling accepted an immunity deal from Congress to
spill the beans about Bush’s assault on the U.S. Constitution. The 1st Amendment protects freedom of association,
freedom of speech and freedom from government-imposed religion. Bush & Trump swore an Oath of Office to not betray
their oath.
* Bush Attorney General John Ashcroft created “Cointelpro-On-Steroids” modeled after the most disloyal FBI Director in American history, J Edgar Hoover (not to stereotype loyal FBI officials). Ashcroft then was severely reprimanded for his abuse of the “Federal Material Witness Statute” by a panel of federal appeals court judges for violating federal criminal law and his disloyalty to his Oath of Office loyalty oath.
Republicans love to regulate every other right except gun rights!
Wait, you are trying to conflate a few nonsensical overreaches (no mention of FISA court, bleach bit, trannys who are killers) to a need to undermine a Constitution right? Why equate those to 2A and not any other A? I’ll bet you’d freak if they tried to undo the 21A because of those things.
Calm down, you are not getting ROE back and trying to get rid of 2A isn’t going to work as a penalty to the right for it. Grow TF up.
An Anonymous Democrat Marxist Useful Idiot trying to pass themselves off as a Republican constitutionalist tried this pitch:
Americans are required to have a driver’s license to operate an automobile and to operate it while sober… If government can regulate automobile drivers, we can’t regulate weapons designed for war?
Where do we start with you, Skippy? Or are you Tampon Tim Walz, posting Anonymously about the AR-15 you carried in hard fought TICs with the Taliban overseas?
First, where in the Bill of Rights do you find driving or possessing any kind of vehicle listed similar to how the 2A protects Americans and their firearms firearms and the right to possess and carry them from the government?
Same hidden section that you also find the right for you to have a taxpayer funded elective birth control abortion?
There is no constitutional right to have a drivers license – that is a permission that states provide to their citizens in various forms.
Skippy/Tampon Tim… you need to find yourself a copy of the real Bill Of Rights and Constitution. The one you have as your guide while posting this is clearly a forgery.
Second: “weapons designed for war”. The US does not issue the semiautomatic AR-15 or similar other semiautomatic rifles to the military. No NATO nation issues any semiautomatic rifle, AR-15 or otherwise, that I’m aware of.
So… just like the movie Moneyball: if they’re “weapons designed for war”, why aren’t they issued to the troops for use in war? You didn’t internalize that term “weapons designed for war” from Bolshevik Barack, DEI Hire Harris and the rest of the Soviet Democrat cult you voted for, did you?
Third, given your obvious abject terror that after civilians have been legally purchasing AR-15 rifles for over 60 years, with current estimates that there are 23+ MILLION of those rifles legally owned and used by Americans, what objective facts about how often they are used by those law abiding Americans in crimes leads you to post in terror as you just did?
Just be yourself the next time, Commie. You don’t have the smarts to pass yourself off as a Republican that supports constitutional rights.
“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
“Regulation” = “infringement”. And where do you see a Constitutional guarantee of driving rights, you lying, despicable Marxist moron?
Is not the truck of death an “arm?”
“but all constitutional rights can be
regulatedabridged/infringed”Wrong
“It’s almost as if the change is not in the people, but in the polls. ”
My opinion is that it is both. I wouldn’t want to hazard a guess regarding the relative weighting of those factors.
Well the constitution is quite clear on the matter of armed citizens and if you’re still confused then I would suggest the operating manual that goes with it called the Federalists papers.
I think that people, especially in California on this voting cycle, have begun to think that George Soros funded DA’s are a greater threat to their health and safety than the “Assault Weapons”. They even changed their constitution back to where crimes are treated as crimes and not just book reports.
If you want to cut down on gun crime then jail those who commit crimes with guns and enhance their sentences. There are laws on the books both federal and state about who is legally not allowed to carry firearms and if they were enforced, I strongly suspect the crime rate and illegal gun use would fall. Just a feeling of course.
Jurisdictions which require you to yield to the criminals instead of asserting your rights help no one at all and they leave the ground to the criminals instead of the law-abiding citizens.
Cities and states that trial people for saving their own lives and their neighbors’ lives are sick and only worsen the problem/
I have been a long time proponent of states being required to honor all concealed carry weapons licenses as legitimate, irrespective of the state (national reciprocity). That could break some logjams and having the feds go after local prosecutors who try to convict Good Samaritan interventions is another. Trying to convict a man for stopping an obvious threat is trying to abridge his constitutional rights. (Mr Penny in New York). New York is starting to sound like the UK where you have no right to self defense. Even a cornered mouse has that right.
My rec. for a personal firearm is Colt 1911 .45 with jacketed hollow points. If you’re a slight build then any smaller Glock or Sig Sauer 9 mm would suffice with jhp’s.
Lastly remember that your handgun is there to just keep you alive until you get to your rifle.
GEB,
Great comment.
“My rec. for a personal firearm is Colt 1911 .45 with jacketed hollow points. If you’re a slight build then any smaller Glock or Sig Sauer 9 mm would suffice with jhp’s.”
Here’s a better idea. Find an experienced friend and go together to a local mom-and-pop gun store. Try different models until you find one that fits you ( you could always make it fit you better). After you buy the chosen one, use it, practice. Most people buy a gun, load it, and never fire it.
As to ammunition, JHPs might not be always the best choice. Think winter clothes/coats. Your experienced friend will gladly walk you through it.
J
Also a good suggestion . I already did that myself. Still practice. It’s hard to beat the .45 colt for accuracy. A little heavy but very accurate. Most of my friends have firearms. We live is a constitutional carry state . My daughter is especially deadly.
You can get a lifetime concealed carry in my state.
.45 Colt or .45 ACP?
Take care, be safe.
J
I was describing the firearm and not the ammunition. I have never seen a Colt 1911 that fired the .45 Colt, whereas the Colt 1911 was designed for the .45 ACP
(Automatic colt pistol) Thats why I only own .45 ACP ammunition for my Colts and Springfields.
It’s hard to beat the .45 colt for accuracy. A little heavy but very accurate.
There is no difference in ultimate accuracy between .45 ACP and 9mm. Or .38 Spl, for that matter .45 ACP is still preferred in Bullseye competition, but on the other hand 9mm and .38 Spl is preferred in PPC competition where the 50 yard stages generally decide who comes out on top. I have not heard of one of the top competitors in PPC using .45 ACP going all the way back to the 1970s when it was a revolvers only sport.
For practical accuracy there is no real difference between the service calibers to choose from used by police. Police are increasingly leaving primarily the .45 ACP and now both the 40 S&W and 357 Sig for the 9mm. In the civilian world, we can pick pretty much whatever we think is best. Those who feel better armed with a .45 ACP, 357 Sig, 40 S&W, etc should choose what makes them feel better prepared.
Mindset and the degree of preparation are far more factors than choices of specific handgun and caliber if you draw the black marble some day and are targeted by a criminal.
No different than for police with what they are issued by their employers.
Beware the fairer sex when they are armed. When we lived in the Catskills many years ago, my father-in-law, who lived nearby, belonged to a Schutzen club. This club had a bi-annual meet that involved shooting across a valley at a target 1500 meters away. The target “black” was a 14″ circle. The largest class was for open-sight rifles. My wife and I shot in that class, using club rifles that were .308 mauser-type guns. A competition round consisted of 3 shots. I had shot previously, but not recently. I did “OK”, I had one shot just inside the edge of the black, and two other shots 2 or 3 inches off in the next ring. My wife, who had never shot a rifle before, stepped up and put all 3 of her shots within about 8″ of one another in the middle of the black (there was a crew in a pit beneath the target who were responsible for lowering it, tabulating and reporting results, replacing the paper, and raising it). She also routinely out shoots me with a handgun, even though I practice (albeit not enough) and she does not, and declines to apply for her concealed carry permit. I pity anyone who does attack her when she is armed – they are highly unlikely to survive the attempt.
Was intended to be reply to UpstateFarmers post, but the placement is wrong.
“As to ammunition, JHPs might not be always the best choice. Think winter clothes/coats. Your experienced friend will gladly walk you through it.”
The terminal ballisticians working for the major manufacturers of police service ammunition already do R&D testing of those scenarios, given that winter is a real thing in many parts of this country. A choice of any brand and model of service ammunition used by police departments and any discussion after that point is akin to trying to pick fly poop out of pepper.
A lot of Mom & Pop gun shops and well meaning friends and anonymous advisors aren’t aware of that.
Vista Law Enforcement Ammunition
http://www.le.vistaoutdoor.com/ammunition/default.aspx
I have my primary residence in a state that bans HP ammo in carry guns (permitted in a home defense weapon). However, the idiots allow it if the cavity is filled with something soft, which allows the bullet to expand in very close to the same way (don’t ask them to explain, they are for the most part low IQ knee jerk marxists). So I use Hornady Critical Defense/Duty. I get about the same stopping power but need to pay slightly more for it. By the same token, these idiots prohibit more than 2 of the “assault rifle” features on any semi-automatic rifle or shotgun, but there is no prohibition on any of that on a firearm that requires manually advancing the ammo. So my home defense shotgun is a short 12 ga. pump gun with a pistol grip and all of the other “naughty bits” hung on it. Gotta love the liberal “thinking process”…
@Anon, the law predates the use of plastic tip bullets.
I am aware of that, but if they really intended to prevent use of expanding rounds for self-defense while carrying, don’t you think it would have been sensible (albeit unconstitutional) to revise the law to cover the new ammo? I see no reason to change my comment in light of yours, I reiterate my analysis of the law and its keepers here.
Try Speer 147gr G2SR Z9SR147CBP and see what you find. Sorry, not for (re)sale.
But the mindset of everyday folks doesn’t work like that. They go into a store and are not particularly picky about what they will buy. And that’s where problems surface.
Case in point. Upon conversation with an arms dealer/FFL friend (RIP), the conversation evolved to the 9×18 Makarov cartridge and he mentioned the possible error of chambering it in a 9X18 Ultra/Police pistol. I told him that it wouldn’t. Because he looked at me confused I took out my Walther PP Super, unloaded it and handed it over. He got a Makarov cartridge and tried to chamber it. Then he — knew.
I’m all for folks using firearms rather than knives and knives rather than toothpicks.
I’m also for good folks not hurting themselves and/or others by doing it. Like the Polish Shooting Federation Judge. Or perhaps Walz. Or perhaps Cheney. Or so many others.
Btw, I forgot to sign the “Try Speer 147gr G2SR Z9SR147CBP and see what you find” post.
J
“They go into a store and are not particularly picky about what they will buy.”
I take pains to avoid that temptation. While I am a right to self-defense/2A zealot, I am actually not that much of a firearms hobbyist. To me, it is a tool to do specific job, and little more. I have friends and associates who collect all kinds of firearms and ammo, just because they think its cool to do so, and for them that is fine. It just isn’t that great an enthusiasm for me. Fortunately, most (but possible not all) of them are knowledgeable enough not to load the wrong ammo into a gun, even if it would fit and fire. I decided long ago that none of the firearms kept in my house were to use ammo that could possibly be confused under stress. I settled on .357 magnum / .38 spl for handguns (making certain that all of the handguns were .357 mag capable), 12 ga. for shotguns, and .308 for rifles. I wasn’t even receptive to 9mm, since, while the case length is quite different, the diameter is close to that of .357/38. At that time, there was no such thing as a civilian carry permit here, so I wasn’t worried about concealability. Once Bruen worked its magic and forced these clowns to allow carry, I found that my 4″ Ruger .357 magnum revolver wasn’t the ideal weapon to carry concealed 🙂 so I did buy a 9mm striker fired pistol (nearly, but not quite,a subcompact model) that I can pocket carry. Oh, and I did have a .50 BMG single-shot sniper rifle for a few years, until this state decided to go the mandatory registration route on weapons of that caliber. There was little chance of loading 50BMG ammo into the wrong gun 🙂
@Gen,
I wouldn’t recommend a 1911.
8rnds?
I personally prefer the SIg P226 in either 9mm or .40S&W.
I like the DA/SA over having a SA w Safety.
The reality… any gun you can easily and comfortably shoot works. Just make sure you have the appropriate ammo. FMJs are good at the range.
Stopping the bad guy w/o the worry of over penetration? Not so much. Frangible works much better.
-G
Several states prohibit the use of an AR-15 to hunt deer. Why? Because those states have determined the AR15 ammo is unsuitable for hunting large game. Meaning, there is a higher likelihood a deer shot with an AR15 will not die immediately. If it is merely wounded, rather than killed, then the hunter may be unable to track it down, put it out of its misery, and retrieve the carcass. So those 8-10 states ban ARs for deer hunting. They do allow deer hunting but require more powerful rifle ammo.
——–
I have suspected for several years that the real reason why Democrats want to ban AR15s is because those rifles are mostly owned by people in rural areas and small to mid size towns, not cities. And those people tend to vote Republican. So Democrats can gin up outrage about AR15s, knowing if they succeed in banning them it will be mostly Republican voters impacted.
Democrats, meanwhile, tend to cram themselves into large cities where few people own AR15s. But many city dwellers do own handguns, including apparently VP Harris. If Democrats tried to ban handguns, then Democrat voters WOULD be impacted by the ban and Democrats may get blowback.
So Democrats spend all of their effort demonizing “assault rifles” despite the fact they are used in a very small percentage of gun related homicides – and almost no suicides – relative to handguns.
Can you use an AR10 in those states that ban AR15s?
Exactly, why would they ban the gun and not the round? Because they are moron zealots, that’s why.
an AR10 fires a 7.62X51mm round which is basically a .308 caliber round and can be used for hunting large game.
The Win 308 is just the successor to the 30-06 which was used in the 1903 Springfield rifle and the M-1 Garand. The Win 308 was used in the M-14 of Viet Nam era. It has somewhat of a higher chamber pressure than the standard military 7.62×51 military round. But both the Win 308 and 30-06 are legitimate hunting rounds but I would say you need to check your state.
Just get 1 AR 15 and 1 AR 10 and the you’re covered. Not very expensive.
@GEB
Learn a bit more.
The AR-15 is now offered in multiple rounds not just 5.56 NATO. Its a short action.
The AR-10 is a longer action and again is more than just 7.62 NATO.
The bans are on distinguishable features not the name of the weapon.
You can read PICA (IL’s assault weapons ban law)
If the ILSSC (IL State Supreme Court) doesn’t stop IL appeal, It will go to SCOTUS and get shot down.
Everyone knows this. The bans are meant to harass FFLs and Legal Gun owners.
-G
I am aware of the other ammunition for the AR 15 and AR 10, just don’t use them. I only have so much storage room for ammunition and firearms so I stay simple and conventional and stay familiar with what I have.
I had a friend (since deceased) who had a complete inventory and model of every rifle ever produced by the Springfield Armory from smoothbore muskets up to the AR 15 / M16 but it was in a large room built with limited access and hardened and hidden so you would never guess it was there. I am not that big a collector.
Someday I might like to try the new military 6.8 round in the sig sauer XM5 but doubt I will get that chance.
“Someday I might like to try the new military 6.8 round in the sig sauer XM5 but doubt I will get that chance.”
I am similarly disposed, but details differ. The additional round I am considering is .338 Lapua Magnum in an accurate rifle. That would replace the .50 BMG rifle I sold after my home state made firearms of that caliber subject to registration. The use case for my .50 BMG was to protect my off-grid refuge property in the Virginia mountains from invasion if we went to SHTF times (50 BMG with the right ammo and a good line of sight is pretty good at stopping a variety of vehicles at a distance). .338 LP delivers somewhat less kinetic energy, but there is a large overlap with .50 BMG capabilities, and the idiots who have banned or regulated .50 BMG are either too stupid to realize that, or cynically believe that banning it wouldn’t create as many beneficial headlines for them. I was seriously considering buying the Lapua rifle very soon when it looked like Harris might win. The Trump/GOP victory has induced me to move that purchase considerably lower on my priority list, although it does remain on that list.
The 338LM is no where near a .50 BMG.
There Cheytec 415 which is a very accurate round. Very expensive too.
Now if you need to hit a target over 1 mile away… that would be my first choice.
-G
@GEB
Its not the ammo but the entire upper that is made specifically for that round. So you’d have a single lower but would have to switch uppers.
That’s why I said its a short action vs a long action.
When PICA is repealed and either there’s a national hearing protection law that takes suppressors out of the NFA, I’ll look at getting an AR or something similar in this new 338 ARC or 338 Spectre. (Roughly the same … a .338 in a 10mm necked down case. ) They make both super and subsonic rounds. now a subsonic in an expanding round… will be a game changer in home defense.
Not sure where the 6.8SPC is going these days.
Also a suppressed Ruger 10/22 is a must have too.
-G
Just be aware that, while a rifle chambered for .308 Win is safe bet to be capable of firing 7.62×51 NATO safely, the same is not true for 5.56 NATO in a .223 firearm, even though those two cartridges are considered by some to be equivalent. 5.56 NATO does have a higher pressure range than .223, and iirc a very slightly different case length spec, and while 5.56 will almost always chamber and be capable of firing in a .223 weapon, utilizing it that way may easily be unsafe.
@Anon
What a dumb question. Do some research.
Do you know what an ‘assault weapon’ is?
Its a legal fiction.
Its a term that is defined within the law. That specific law to describe the firearm they want to ban.
So the AR-10 like the AR-15 are banned.
In IL if you look at how the ‘assault weapon’ is defined…
‘Handguns w slides are not banned. Nor are revolvers.’ but other handguns are.
‘The AR platform is banned.’ The M1A is not if it has the Springfield Armory muzzle break and not the flash suppressor even though the muzzle break does more to suppress the muzzle flash than the flash suppressor which redirects the muzzle flash, not hides it.
The Ruger 10/22 is not banned. No .22lr rifles are… in short range situations… the 10/22 is deadly.
There’s more but you get the idea.
States dont ban rifles. They regulate the type of ammunition that can be used for hunting. Some states require straight wall ammunition of a give foot pounds at the muzzle. The recent examples are the Winchester 350 and 400 Legends. The AR15 can be chambered for both of those rounds as well as many others than the 5.56/.223REM. Only an idiot like Dennis’s neighbor would hunt deer with a AR15 in 5.56.
Upstate, please check the new Massachusetts gun law. This state does ban the purchase of many different models of handguns, shotguns and rifles. There are at least 4 lawsuits in the works challenging this infringement on our rights.
Same with NJ. Just as bad, if not worse…
@Upstate
My deer rifle is 7mm Rem Mag. My other deer rifle is .300WM
Yet in Chicago, outside of a handgun, my home defense is a 10/22.
Why? Because its quieter and less risk of over penetration.
To your point. Yes states regulate what they believe to be a humane amount of energy to kill a deer with the first round.
Or they exclude rifles and go w shotguns only.
In terms of ballistics. .270Win seems to be a good choice for most.
Although .300BLK works at short range.
-G
According to what I have read, one of the design criteria for the military rifles capable of firing 5.56 NATO was the ability to put as many bullets into the torso of a human adversary in as short a time as possible, at a reasonable range. Those are not necessarily the criteria you want in a deer hunting rifle.
“According to what I have read, one of the design criteria for the military rifles capable of firing 5.56 NATO was the ability to put as many bullets into the torso of a human adversary in as short a time as possible, at a reasonable range.”
Where did the “as short a time as possible” criteria come from for 5.56 caliber for military use? Is it the same for the 7.62 M14?
Or earlier American military cartridges like 30/06, 30/03, 30 U.S?
Are all of them lacking the criteria you would want for being a hunting rifle because of their military origins? AR-15s go head to head at Camp Perry and elsewhere against M14 semiautomatic variants in .308 Win and Garand semiautomatics chambered in 30/06.
Should we all be sus if we’re to think that means they don’t meet the criteria for reasonable deer hunting rifle?
I doubt I will ever choose to hunt deer with an AR-15 loaded with ammunition specifically intended for big game hunting.
But that doesn’t mean I would be doomed to failure if I did choose to do that because the caliber and rifle aren’t up to doing that task.
Perhaps more importantly, why should the government have any say or input whatsoever in our choices of rifle platform for whatever legitimate reason we choose?
These are the very same politicians who are telling us wide open borders are still secure. And of course male tranny admirals and nuclear officials can menstruate and get pregnant.
My deer rifle is 7mm Rem Mag. My other deer rifle is .300WM
My deer rifle is a Winchester Model 1895 manufactured in 1898 and chambered in 30 US that my grandfather purchased a few years later. It hunts loaded with the original style cast bullets.
My deer rifle is also a 35 Whelen assembled and stocked on a 1963 Husqvarna bolt action rifle.
My deer rifle is also a Sako Finnbear, chambered in 30/06
My deer rifle is also a Sako Mannlicher carbine factory chambered in 7×62 Sharp & Harte.
My deer rifle is also a 30 Newton that started life as another 1960’s Husqvarna in .308 Winchester.
My deer rifle is yet another Husqvarna, still chambered in 358 Norma Magnum just as it was offered for sale 60+ years ago.
My deer rifle is also a .54 caplock Hawkin muzzleloader, loaded with 525 grain pure lead Minie ball bullets.
They’re also my elk, moose, sheep, goat, antelope etc rifles, depending on what I’m hunting on a given day. All were manufactured prior to 1972.
I do have two rifles manufactured after 1972; two AR-15s with multiple uppers in different calibers.
My deer rifle COULD be an AR-15 and everything would be fine. But they’re fugly and don’t carry easily during a day of hunting. So they will never go deer hunting – but they do get a work out shooting the local farmers and ranchers gophers as compensation. Whether with the 20″ 5.56 Match upper or the much less expensive .22 rimfire.
Democrats want to tell me I am wrong to even own this many firearms, never mind what I choose to use those rifles for.
After all, as Bribery Biden told us all, you just have to fire a couple of shots from a double barreled shotgun off the back porch.
“my home defense is a 10/22.”
TEHO. I prefer my short folding stock Maverick pump gun with laser and light, using the adapter for the mini 12 ga shells (raises the capacity to 12). I’m not concerned about excessive noise if I need to defend my home form intruders. Like your 10/22, it won’t overpenetrate (with the correct shells), and it has significantly more stopping power.
I have a couple of old shotguns that are broken down for now.
The reason I don’t like then for home defense is the barrel length. Not good in CQB. (YMMV depending on which shotguns you own)
The 10/22 is only 16″ and in its current rig, I’m hitting tight groups at 50yrds with no problem. (dime size)
So there’s not going to be a lot of collateral damage. Also a 22.lr pistol and my 9mm and .40S&W.
(Frangible rounds )
Now if I was at my sister’s house… different story.
Less issue of collateral damage.
The reason for suppressed is more for my hearing, not scaring the dog, or the missus.
UpstateFarmer posted: Only an idiot like Dennis’s neighbor would hunt deer with a AR15 in 5.56.
Don’t go down a different Assumptions Urban Myths Rabbit Hole than the one Dennis McIntyre goes down.
The 5.56 caliber has become a popular hunting rifle for a large segment of American hunters AFTER ammunition manufacturers started designing hunting bullet rather than just FMJ and match ammunition. They aren’t idiots because they decided to do that. This is not the FMJ 55/63 grain bullets that were pretty much the only thing available for 5.56 rifles for decades.
Most of those hunters default to some AR-15 variant, but there are no shortage of bolt action hunting rifles chambered in 5.56 and barrels whose twist rates are specifically intended to stabilize heavy long hunting bullets from 50 -80.
Nosler, Swift and other manufacturers offer 5.56 hunting ammunition around 65 – 75 grains in weight. Nobody would raise a question if the rifle were chambered in .243 Winchester loaded with 70 grain bullets to go hunting deer.
I have multiple 5.56/.223 rifles, semiautomatic and bolt action that are capable of properly stabilizing bullets of that weight. I have no doubt they would be perfectly adequate for hunting the local deer if I didn’t have other choices. But I also believe that there are much better calibers to choose from, no matter what kind of rifle a hunter wants to use. Nor do I want to carry an AR-15 around all day hunting, no matter what caliber of upper is mounted on the receiver. For me, they do not carry as pleasingly in the hands or slung from the shoulder as a conventional wood stocked bolt action rifle.
@Old dog,
The point is that many states do regulate what you can use when hunting.
The point is that many states do regulate what you can use when hunting.
The rebuttal is that it’s generally about regulating the ammunition for hunting, not about prohibiting the AR-15
That is true. You can hunt w a 5.56 for hogs. .300Blk for deer. out of an AR15. AR10 (longer action) has all sorts of rounds. I don’t know of any that would be limited.
I guess you could look at the amount of energy transferred to see what is legal and what is not.
More people are beaten to death each year that are killed by “assault rifles”. Institute of Justice and FBI figures over many years
Dude!
Get your facts straight.
Its ‘all rifles’. Although we are starting to see pistols in rifle calibers on the rise by gang members. Although in Chicago… 3D printed glock switches are also out there. (BTW just owning one is a crime.)
These ‘assault weapons bans’ are a joke.
“3D printed glock switches are also out there. (BTW just owning one is a crime.) ”
A law was recently introduced into NJ Senate making possession of instructions (including computer software) capable of use to produce a 3D (or similarly) produced firearm a felony. How are instructions not “speech”?Can’t make this shite up…
It will take years for a challenge to get thru the courts.
They know that. That’s why they pass laws like PICA.
The glock switch is classified as a machine gun in itself so just having one in your possession is a felony.
Existing laws regarding NFA weapons apply.
The switch does modify how the trigger functions (blocking the sear to fire full auto) so yes its illegal while a bump stock is not.
“The switch does modify how the trigger functions”
I’ve seen some legal challenges to binary triggers materialize for some jurisdictions. Anything like that going on there?
Several states prohibit the use of an AR-15 to hunt deer. Why? Because those states have determined the AR15 ammo is unsuitable for hunting large game.
Now that’s a statement completely devoid of important nuance and context. Do they ban the rifle – or the caliber of the rifle i.e. all .22/.223 calibers?
In other words, if that AR-15 has an upper chambered in one of the 6.5 calibers or the .45 calibers, is it still prohibited? And if somebody thinks they can hunt deer with a single shot Thompson Contender chambered in .223 caliber, are those states okay with that choice because it’s not a semiautomatic rifle?
In a similarly general statement, many of those states with such prohibitions put very little thought into restrictions like that.
Whatever the state, presumably they don’t have similar restrictions against somebody choosing to hunt big game with a .243 Winchester, whether they also decide to use 58/70/75 grain bullets as their choice. But that state apparently bans the .223 with it’s better sectional density when using big game bullets of 55 – 70 grains.
There’s a lot of urban legend and outright “everybody knows” myths regarding firearms and ammunition in America. Not all of it is seen coming only from government.
Turley is at it again with his misleading arguments. He’s merging the ideas of outright bans with regulations and restrictions, which, as the poll he referenced shows, still enjoys strong backing at 56%. He conveniently omitted the poll’s title, which is very telling: “Majorities Still Back Stricter Gun Laws, Assault Weapons Ban.”
Some Democrats are not opposed to outright bans, and expressing that view is certainly their prerogative. However, that does not mean all of them agree; that’s distinct from supporting stricter regulations that align with constitutional rights. Universal background checks have nearly 90% approval, even among gun owners themselves.
Turley is clearly confusing outright bans on handguns, which lack widespread endorsement, with assault-style rifles, with measures that consistently receive majority support. The following quote provides important context for understanding the distinction that Turley’s column is misleadingly attempting to blur: the difference between outright handgun bans and reasonable restrictions.
“ Americans continue to oppose an outright ban on handgun possession. In fact, the 20% of U.S. adults who would favor a law banning the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons, is down seven percentage points from last year and statistically tied with the 19% record low in the 65-year trend.”
Support for stricter regulation has been consistent. Outright bans have had majority support for a long time.
+100
* Outright bans have not had majority support.
“. . . his misleading arguments.” “Turley is clearly confusing . . .” “. . . misleadingly attempting to blur . . .”
I liked your smears better when you used the word “disingenuous.” They were briefer.
BTW, what is an “assault-style” rifle? Is that like an “assault-style” chainsaw? Or an “assault-style” butter knife?
Do you not know how to make the distinction? Does the military have assault-style chainsaws or butter knives?
I thought common sense was a thing with conservatives. ARs are not “assault rifles” but are made to look like one, which is why they are so popular and it is the reason why they are marketed as such. You can’t have a fully automatic M-16, so they made the AR (Armalite) 15 look like one so gun enthusiasts enjoy having a functional ‘cool’ looking rifle. Most of my friends have bought one, including myself, purely because it’s a ‘cool’ ‘-looking weapon that is fun to shoot. Making it even more attractive is the ability to add more ‘cool’ stuff to it to make it look even…cooler. The funny thing is that none of us use them when we go hunting. I know one of the guys treats it like a “garage queen.” It doesn’t go out on the field and gets dirty. It’s strictly a range toy to show off. What it IS handy for unfortunately, is for committing crimes like going on a mass shooting spree because of some grievance or mental illness issue.
Your comment displays your ignorance on firearms and the reason why people like you should not own firearms.
“the reason why people like you should not own firearms.”
My recommendation to people like that is that breathing may be extremely hazardous, and that they should very much try to avoid the practice.
And what exactly is that you are referring to?
I thought common sense was a thing with conservatives. ARs are not “assault rifles” but are made to look like one, which is why they are so popular and it is the reason why they are marketed as such.
George pretends that he has sufficient common sense to be able to post in common sense. Or about conservatives who are the opposite of communists like him/her/they. Then goes into a wild post of lies about the history and purpose of the AR-15 family of rifles.
You can’t have a fully automatic M-16
Another George lie that fails on first inspection. You can own an M16, a Thompson machine gun, an MP5, etc. Perfectly legal to purchase, including online. You just have to be willing to pay the price they’re selling for.
George hopes Americans unlike him who are actually knowledgeable about firearms believes his lies.
He hopes they believe Colt decided in the mid 1960’s to design the AR-15 to look like an “assault rifle”, rather than to market an enjoyable rifle familiar to pretty much everybody armed with one from about the same time in history who served in the military. Not unlike firearms manufacturers quickly moved from offering lever action rifles to those new fangled bolt action rifles after Americans serving in WWI and WWII came home after being issued bolt action rifles.
I know one of the guys treats it like a “garage queen.”
George then claims he knows Dennis McIntyre’s neighbor: the hunter who owns an AR-15, but would never use it for hunting because it would “totally destroy a deer”.
George’s daily litany of lies can’t be excused by his childish levels of reading comprehension and inability to understand that context and nuance are requirements for understanding issues.
Old Dog, you must be suffering the same reading comprehension issue dear Anonymous has.
Of course, people can have an M-16; the obvious problem that any competent gun enthusiast would understand is that they are out of reach to a majority of people because they are hideously expensive and require registration with the ATF. It’s not something the average gun owner will seek except a very wealthy and determined individual. An AR-15 is a much, much cheaper and accessible alternative that looks and may feel like an M-16. That’s the whole point of why it’s marketed as an “assault-style” rifle and why there are so many things you can add to them to make them look more ‘tactical’ and ‘cool.’ The people I hang out with only bought theirs because of the ‘cool’ factor. I know because that’s what we always talk about when we get together to shoot them. There’s always one who has added something new to it to show off.
Old Dog, you must be suffering the same reading comprehension issue dear Anonymous has.
George, you Curious Communist Monkey: your lies aren’t going to fly by trying to channel your abject lack of reading comprehension onto those who mock you and call you out for your sophomoric lies.
We mock you and your lies while at the same time wondering why you come here every single day to insult our host and then lie while claiming that Professor Turley is always wrong and you acting on behalf of your Democrat fellow communists are always right.
Of course, people can have an M-16
That’s a poor attempt to salvage your original lie:
George says: November 19, 2024 at 10:05 AM
Do you not know how to make the distinction? Does the military have assault-style chainsaws or butter knives? … You can’t have a fully automatic M-16
You really are an incredibly cheap fake imitation of an American, George.
George tried to justify his lack of knowledge with his original lies:
The people I hang out with only bought theirs because of the ‘cool’ factor.
Sitting here wondering whether the local chapter of Democrat Kluxxers actually allows you to hang out with them. Or if you actually hang with anybody that isn’t from the Biden School Of Firearms Knowledge: “You only need a double barreled shotgun to fire off the porch”.
is that they are out of reach to a majority of people because they are hideously expensive and require registration with the ATF.
They are expensive. But a scope for a PRC rifle can cost over $5,000 before you consider how much the rifle itself is going to cost you. Or a .50 caliber Barrett or similar rifle, where every round will set you back $5 or so. In the custom hunting rifle world, a bespoke hunting rifle built by Hagn, Fisher, etc will easily set you back around $30,000 if built by one of the true masters, while the walnut blank to start with will go over $5,000 depending on the grade.
In other words George, what’s expensive is in the eye of the person who wants it. The eye of a lying communist that rushed to Google before posting lacks all that context and nuance that escape you along with your pathetic reading comprehension.
And they need similar registration as suppressors/”silencers” do with the ATF – suppressors/”silencers” that are now such hot sellers that rifles and handguns are increasingly being made threaded to mount those suppressors DESPITE the ATF requirements and expense.
You’re in the wrong forum to attempt to get your lies to fly George. Why haven’t you figured that out by now?
Svelaz the spastic no more owns an AR than Dennis does.
He shows his ignorance by claiming people dont hunt with their AR’s.
I hunt small game with an AR in .224 Vlakyrie that is carbon everything and weighs 5.5 lbs.
I hunt deer with a 6.5 Creed AR that weighs 6.5 lbs w/o optics.
I hunt hog with an AR in .458 Socom suppressed
My Coyote AR is a suppressed 6.5 Grendel with lightweight ATN Thor
My suppressed .300 black with NV gets used for a wide range of game, and for getting home.
The day Svelaz owns an AR is the day I’m a goddam astronaut——Lt Dan
“ He shows his ignorance by claiming people dont hunt with their AR’s.”
That’s not what I said, but thanks for again proving why you have a reputation for having reading comprehension problems. I clearly mentioned that the group I hang out with doesn’t use ARs to hunt. That is not to say everyone does not use ARs to hunt.
I’m sure YOU use yours for whatever you want to use it for. We don’t need a list of your preferences. Nobody cares.
“Nobody cares.”
Said George… while people only care about what he posts long enough to point out he’s a pathetically poor liar.
“I clearly mentioned that the group I hang out with doesn’t use ARs to hunt. That is not to say everyone does not use ARs to hunt.”
Beahahahahahahha look at the spastic who cant read. I clearly never said that you said that.
I said
“He shows his ignorance by claiming people dont hunt with their AR’s.”
Bwahahahahahah reading comprehension problems, eh???
Ok fat mouthed Svelaz. Why dont you tell us WHY you mentioned that NONE of your friends use them to hunt. Your implication was that people in general dont use AR’s to hunt. Otherwise, who gives a fvck what your pinhead “friends” do???
You cant even comprehend your own nonsense.
Bwahahahahahahahahaha
Svelaz demonstrates his utter ignorance of firearms and tries to claim that he owns an AR… LMAO at that prospect.
Turley is at it again with his misleading arguments.
George is here with today’s first dropping of one of George’s infamous deuces. What better way for Curious George the Democrat Monkey to start his day of lies than with a first sentence opening attack on his host, Professor Turley?
George can’t keep hoping to use the excuse that he has limited reading comprehension and lacks the critical thinking skills to appreciate context and nuance when responding to each of Professor Turley’s columns. George has NEVER agreed with any column his host, Professor Turley, has published. No matter the subject, Curious George The Democrat Monkey is here to pronounce that Professor Turley is wrong and his posted version of reality is right.
Carefully cherrypicking shows that he appreciates context and nuance well enough to do so in order to promote his Bull Schiff.
@George…
Please actually learn the law.
Turley mentioned Heller.
He forgot McDonald, and then Bruen.
There is so much more… and to think… outside of suicides, most shootings are done w a handgun.
GFY, moron.
Since the figurative Trump “dog” has now caught the “car” – Republicans now own the results. Republicans can no longer blame Democrats.
So how will Trump and friends balance the budget (deficit) and reduce your children’s longterm national debt burden?
George W. Bush never paid for his tax cuts to benefit the richest 1% of Americans. Will Trump pay for his spending or stick the credit card bill to your kids?
Can’t blame the Democrats, Republicans now have to stop whining and start governing!
One of the Anonymous commies here posted this: George W. Bush never paid for his tax cuts to benefit the richest 1% of Americans.
Shades of “The Rich Bernie Sanders, Bidens, Obamas, Clintons, Pelosis, etc don’t pay their fair share”!!!
Let’s offer them the Commie Economic Comprehension test:
The OMB has Treasury budgetary records of the country online, going back to the late 1700’s. There you can look at tax revenue for all those years. Therefore, the economically knowledgeable communists here can go to provide us with which “tax cuts for the rich” weren’t “paid for” (meaning tax revenues collected after those tax cuts decreased, apparently).
Commies can choose from the tax cuts of JFK, Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Trump to make their case which generally looks like more Commie Bull Schiff.
They just have to provide the government data for which president’s tax cuts resulted in LESS tax revenue collected by the feds.
As far as I can tell, whether JFK, Reagan, Clinton, Bush or Trump, every tax cut resulted in MORE taxes collected due to increased economic activity as a result of Americans spending their money to their benefit rather than handing that money over to the financial geniuses in government bureaucracies.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historical-tables/
Can our resident cowardly Anonymous commies be persuaded by a reformed black communist turned free market constitutionalist (after a short stint working in government), Dr. Thomas Sowell, the author of the best selling “Basic Economics”, used as a text in many first year economics courses?
“Trickle Down” Theory and “Tax Cuts for the Rich” Don’t Exist
http://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf
If 52% support a ban on assault rifles, does that mean 48% own one -or more? Holy smokes!
Heller says you can own a gun in your home. And a majority on wanting semiautomatics limited is still a majority. In other words, it has greater support than the support for trump, who the right claims has a ‘mandate’. And finding proposed laws to limit handguns under a Harris administration would be a futile search….
But that would also require you to look beyond the late night gun lobby ads that use deep fakes to conflate actual language and make people appear to be saying things they never said…, you know, the type of Russian disinformation magats suck up without question.
Tyrants ALWAYS want guns and seek to control speech. They will tell you who they are by these two traits
“shall not”
Molon labe
“And finding proposed laws to limit handguns under a Harris administration would be a futile search….”
Except for the fact that as SF DA she openly supported an initiative to *seize* all handguns in the city. And then as senator, repeated that desire numerous times.
No she didn’t. You’re buying the lie.
https://theweek.com/politics/kamala-harris-gun-restrictions-control-background-checks-policy
And a majority on wanting semiautomatics limited is still a majority.
And a lie that’s dependent on telling Americans lies about semiautomatics is still a lie, no matter which cowardly Anonymous fascist communist continues the campaign of lies.
Not even the commies promoting these lies can tell which percentage of crimes are committed with The Evil Baby Killer/Deer Destroyer AR-15.
Whether citizen control through “gun control” or “regulating hate speech” – if commie totalitarians didn’t have lies, they’d have nothing.
Every restriction on civil rights they demand being given the power to enact is dependent on pure Bull Schiff.
Heller says you can own a gun in your home. And a majority on wanting semiautomatics limited is still a majority. In other words, it has greater support than the support for trump
That isn’t what Heller says. This is just one more lie from another cowardly Anonymous Soviet Democrat fascist, still in an ongoing raging Midol Moment since Americans kicked the DEI Hire to the curb.
The DEI Hire who promised for years she would shred Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Cowardly Anonymous commies will be weeping she couldn’t deliver on that promise for years.
“Gun bans were a constant call . . .”
To defend oneself from criminals, domestic or foreign, is the righteous use of a weapon. Why, then, does the Left reject the former, while embracing the latter (with respect to Ukraine)?
from my cold dead hand
The democrats need to abandon the progressives. Guns, transitioning children, 3rd trimester abortion, men dressed and acting as hyper sexualized women reading stories to children,… the list goes on. We have had several drag story hours in my neighborhood, I am happy to report from a very democrat Boston neighborhood, the vast majority of neighbors did not attend. It is hard to see how they think this nonsense will win votes, when they have the common sense to stay away.
“The democrats need to abandon the progressives.”
Would they be best served by doing so? No doubt? The salient question is “can they?” To me it appears to be a massive infection of the group identifying as Democrat, and it may have spread too deep and wide for any remedy short in amputation, and I’m not even convinced that would be effective. Might allowing the political party patient to die not be the preferable alternative?
pls excuse typos – too early 🙂
The Progressive-Left is a small minority of the Democrat Party. Probably 70% of the country (currently all independents and most Republicans) are really Kennedy Democrats, or what would later be termed “Blue-Dog” Democrats. Any Marketing Professional would gladly ditch a 5% slice if they had a reasonable chance of winning the majority of that 70%. The negative is that if they don’t at least try, the Dems become the 21st Century Whigs.
The above presupposes (without good reason, candidly) that the GOP stays in the mainstream and controls the instincts of its own small minority of loons.
” the instincts of its own small minority of loons.”
Which loons would they be? Those of us who insist that the Constitution remains the sole authorization for government power in the US, and that it must be interpreted literally?
The state’s gun ban violated several mandated Constitutional laws and the Rights, Privileges and Immunities. These gun bans also create a Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law.
Article VI, Clause 2; is straightforward in terms that our Constitution and laws pursuant to it are the Supreme Law Of Our Land. It mandates that Judges in every state shall be bound to the Constitution and the pursuant laws.
Article VI, Clause 3; mandates that all of governments three branches, both Federal and State are also bound to the Constitution and the pursuant laws. In Clauses 2 and 3 the founders used the words “This Constitution” to insure government did not deviate from the Constitution’s mandates regarding the limits placed on government or the Privileges and Immunities of the People.
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1; mandates all citizens of the several States have equal Privileges and Immunities.
The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1; clearly mandates the States have zero Constitutional authority to make or enforce laws abridging the Privileges and Immunities of citizens of the United States. Cannot deprive citizens due process or equal protections of law.
The Second Amendment, an enumerated right protected and guaranteed by Constitutional law and written in obvious language, denying any government authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. This could not be any clearer.
The argument by anti-gun advocates is always that these arms are weapons of war, as if this is a reason to subvert the Civil Rights of American Citizens. However the intent of our founding fathers was to insure the People would be able to defend and protect themselves from another tyrannical government. We as a Nation had suffered and fought to break free from such a government just a few years earlier. Limiting Arms the people could bear would disable our ability to detour government from their natural tenancy to seek uncontrollable power.
Obviously our Constitution protects and guarantees our enumerated and unenumerated Rights, Privileges and Immunities. The Second Amendment is crystal clear in its language and intent. We must also note that not one of these Rights, Privileges or Immunities requires a test to be used.
Congress, knowing that government, would try to exceed their Constitutional authority, gave the People laws to protect them. 18 USC 242 Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law is one of those laws. The DOJ Civil Rights Division has an excellent summary of 18 USC 242.
It is past time for the Supreme Court to uphold their Constitutional mandate and end all assaults on our Second Amendment, as well as other Rights, Privileges and Immunities under the same unconstitutional attacks.
“The argument by anti-gun advocates is always that these arms are weapons of war, as if this is a reason to subvert the Civil Rights of American Citizens. ”
In fact, that was the main objective for adding the Second Amendment: to ensure that in the event an oppressive government came to power ,and attempted to suppress the essential liberties of The People, that The People would have effective means of resistance. Frankly, even the Bruen and Heller SCOTUS decisions fall significantly short of correctly recognizing the scope of arms that The Founders intended to allow The People to possess.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment continues to rule and embraced by the vast majority of the people only the Left Wing Radical Socialist Dems and declining Main Street Media who believe in control/dictatorship want to confiscate guns and discard the freedoms we enjoy under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The radical Left Wing Socialist Dems tried to impose their will on the vast majority and the Voters spoke loudly NO, with the election of Donald Trump.
A (bare) majority still support banning “assault weapons”, but most of those have no idea what they mean by it. They believe all sorts of crazy things about the AR-15, because the Dem politicians have told them so many lies about it. Look at all the people who are convinced that “AR” stands for “assault rifle”! If you were to limit the poll to those who actually know what an AR-15 is and what it does, you’d find that support for banning it dwindling.
Among the minority who know what it is and would still ban it, most simply don’t give a sh*t about the bill of rights — any of it. Those who’d readily shred the 2nd amendment are just as ready to shred the 1st, the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th. They don’t believe in the entire concept of inalienable rights which the government may never infringe no matter what.
Milhouse,
Well said. Many people get all their information based what they see from Hollywood. I recall hearing a NPR article where the reporter, a woman, went to a gun range I used to go to and shot a AR15 for the first time. To her surprise, she enjoyed it. That is where the article stopped.
Armalite Rifle. And I did not need to do a search to know what it means.
Look for the socialist/antisemitic/antigun/open borders wing of the party to decamp and set up shop elsewhere before the next general election. Nothing lasts forever. Old gibbering ghosts like Pelosi and Biden were the only things holding this coalition of nutballs together. It will take the Left years to sort this one out.
Is this trending decline due to people just defending their 2nd amendment right on principle, or are they they just wanting the choice as to how they defend themselves in this rising crime environment? Ideally it’s both. If it’s just the latter, then we could expect it to rise again as conditions improve.
“Ideally it’s both.”
Agree. My optimistic guess is that the news reports of violent crime have induced people who were previously ambivalent to think more deeply about the root issues. I know people who I am pretty sure sometimes vote Democrat, and have some degree of TDS, who nevertheless seem to take their right to effective personal self defense seriously. Maybe those reports have been a wake-up call for some of those people. I am about as adamant a supporter, and as expansive an interpreter, of the natural right to self-defense, as embodied in the 2nd A., as you are likely to find anywhere. I have a permit to carry concealed in my home state (which historically has been one of the least firearms friendly jurisdictions anywhere), as well as in virtually every other state I frequent. I read those news accounts. I carry frequently, but on an assessed needs basis. So personally, while I keep the reports in mind, I also try to maintain objectivity in evaluating risks. Hopefully I am not alone in that attitude. Started rambling a bit on the subject, sorry…
Defund the police, liberal policies on bail and release. We also see the new in the UK of people getting arrested for speech on social media. So, the people are taking up security on their own. Democrat policies are the best sales pitch for gun ownership and defense of the 2nd Amendment.
Maybe this means that some pollsters have decided to have include people other than D’s
Gee. It’s almost as if the change is not in the people, but in the polls. Weird.