The Modern Sporting Rifle! Doesn't fool the NY Times

You simply have no chance to keep the Government in check with out the threat a well armed populace presents.
Click to expand...

Promote that and get support for it and I think you build a strong foundation for 2A support even amongst those who don't want to own one.

One big issue now in many places where guns are permitted to the population (and have a strong rule of law, so not places like the Horn of Africa) is that because X% of the population don't feel the need to own a gun, coupled with the fact that they see guns as a threat to them, they cannot then fathom any reason why someone else might want to or should own one.

The big weakness, however, (and I've posted this before) is that the Insurrectionist Theory (as I now know it to be called) is just a flagship principle, not an actionable concept. I cannot imagine a situation where the American people would find themselves faced with an oppressive government and were still in possession of their privately owned weapons.

If ever government reached that level of corruption and self-interest, guns would have been outlawed long before. So really it is not the guns that would protect against abusive government but the courts precisely by currently protecting the right to guns.

In other words, it seems to me that the fight against tyranny is now. Not because the current administrations are tyrannical, but what some would do to garner popularity and votes now (ie curtail gun ownership as much as possible) would provide the environment for a possible oppressive government to thrive in the future, unhindered and unfettered.

Does that make any sense?! It's crystal clear in my head but when I try to articulate it.... :o
 
They have incrementally weakened it over time. If they had tried to do what has been done to us all at once. We would have rebelled.

No point in expecting a different response trying to go the other way.
But the plow should be turned so its cutting the right furrow.

I remember when Ted Turner started a cartoon called " Captain Planet"
Every one laughed. We now know what they were doing. We should have acted instead of laughed.
 
Last edited:
the Insurrectionist Theory is just a flagship principle, not an actionable concept.
Click to expand...
It is, and the other side claims it's a veiled threat to overthrow the government. It hurts us.

An alternative way of stating it involves the monopoly of force. The very idea of the Bill of Rights is to prevent that. It's why we can speak out against the government with impunity, why our homes and possessions are secure against arbitrary seizure, and why we are allowed to be armed.

I doubt we'll ever see a shootin' war with Uncle Sam. The fact is the RKBA provides a deterrent to a government that would go so far as to provoke such a situation. A government that has a monopoly on force can do whatever it wants; one that doesn't has to practice restraint.
 
If the MSR term were a persuasive argument for additional restriction, why would it give the NYT a case of the vapors?
Click to expand...

It is because they understand the gun is primarily a weapon and regard the MSR as the cheap propaganda attempt at a euphemism. They oppose ownership on the weapons aspect. They understand that the MSR people don't want to have sporting emphasis guns but are trying to rationalize weapons emphasis guns with some baloney about sport.

About the insurrection argument. That's interesting. The clear American example is the Civil Rights Movement. Current scholarship by African-Americans indicates that privately owned firearms were crucial in protecting the movement against local government forces and by private groups that were supported by local government. While not bringing forth many pitched battles, attacks by such forces were deterred and there were some shootouts. Is that insurrection, not really as the changes were accomplished legislatively but the force of private arms aided in supporting the demonstrations.

That's a better case for civilian arms than usually comes out of the standard RKBA rhetoric.
 
I'm really surprised at the mileage this thread has gotten.

My view is pretty clear to my own self.

Sportsmen have done plenty of damage to the RKBA.
 
The fact is the RKBA provides a deterrent to a government that would go so far as to provoke such a situation. A government that has a monopoly on force can do whatever it wants; one that doesn't has to practice restraint.
Click to expand...

I'm a little tired so forgive me if I'm missing the message but I'm not sure if your post was agreeing with mine or not. :o

Just in case I'll rephrase my position: if the current government were to do something absolutely abominable then, yes, the RKBA would allow the population to react, but that is (as you say) very, very unlikely. So in that respect the RKBA, as of now, is symbolic. In fact, right now, the only viable obstacle to government over-reach is the courts system (and a free and open press).

Only if that fails to do its job can the RKBA's existence be threatened and so it is the courts that are acting as the check on government, rather than the threat of an armed revolt. That was simply my point.

If what you wrote was supporting that, please ignore my morning rambling.
 
The beauty of the concept of an armed populace being able to overthrow a tyrannical government is that, as long as it is believed to be capable of doing so, it will never need to actually do so.

However, we are now in the 21st century, and "rational" people no longer believe that people with their personal arms can defeat a government who has tanks, jet planes and atomic weapons.

And since this is patently no longer possible (in their opinion) the rational for us being allowed to continue to own deadly weapons no longer exists. So they do not fear armed rebellion as they encroach on gun ownership through ownership restrictions.

Note that their focus is on private gun ownership, going to great lengths to make it socially unpopular, and claiming it is a risk to public health & safety. Yet despite their dismissal of armed resistance as the ravings of paranoiacs, the fact that they put so much effort into gun control cannot be explained by their claimed motives, as many other things are greater risks to public health & safety.

If the greatest good for the greatest number were truly their priority, they would focus their efforts in other areas.

An armed resistance movement need not defeat the military forces of a government on the field of battle to be successful. Easy? no. it is not, but it is not impossible, for if it were, they wouldn't be so worried about it.
 
Note that their focus is on private gun ownership, going to great lengths to make it socially unpopular, and claiming it is a risk to public health & safety. Yet despite their dismissal of armed resistance as the ravings of paranoiacs, the fact that they put so much effort into gun control cannot be explained by their claimed motives, as many other things are greater risks to public health & safety.
Click to expand...

This is flying close to being a political topic rather than gun-related but I do see a generally more pro-RKBA attitude amongst Republicans.

If that is so, and the general perception I see in certain post that any attempts to reduce gun ownership is to specifically to weaken the populace rather than reduce crime or violence that involves guns (the questionable nature of that logic being understood) would imply that the Democrats (who seem to push this issue more) are more prone to oppressive governance.

Is that a really reasonable thing to suggest?

As I said if this is too political, then please delete and anyone can respond by PM if they care to.
 
"that the modern sporting rifle mantra was a PR attempt to make the AR platform a nice gun."

Did the New York Times also point out that "assault rifle" was nothing more than a PR exercise by anti-gunners to obfuscate the AR's true nature as a semi-automatic rifle?

They didn't?

My, that's odd...
 
Glenn E Meyer said:
If the MSR term were a persuasive argument for additional restriction, why would it give the NYT a case of the vapors?
Click to expand...

It is because they understand the gun is primarily a weapon and regard the MSR as the cheap propaganda attempt at a euphemism. They oppose ownership on the weapons aspect. They understand that the MSR people don't want to have sporting emphasis guns but are trying to rationalize weapons emphasis guns with some baloney about sport.
Click to expand...

That states your conclusion about why the NYT dislike the MSR label. If the MSR term were a persuasive argument for further restriction, one would expect them to greet it warmly.

RR said:
Sportsmen have done plenty of damage to the RKBA.
Click to expand...

One who argue that their little sliver of use is protected or legitimate, but the other guys are just gun nuts don't help. That such a poor argument was made doesn't make people who shoot hedonically an enemy of the right.
 
pjp said:
This is flying close to being a political topic rather than gun-related but I do see a generally more pro-RKBA attitude amongst Republicans.
Click to expand...

As a generality, you are correct. The generality becomes more correct on ideological issues as you get away from local office holders to Congress. Our parties shifted from a geographical emphasis prior to 1980, with dems dominating in southern states and large cities and having reliable majorities in Congress to post 1980, in which the national parties took on more ideological characters, something like Social Dems versus Christian Dems and Liberals.

You will still find vestiges of the geographical pattern, dems who will at least pay lip service to the 2d Am. right and repubs who favor additional restrictions, but that is no longer the dominant pattern at the national level.

pjp said:
If that is so, and the general perception I see in certain post that any attempts to reduce gun ownership is to specifically to weaken the populace rather than reduce crime or violence that involves guns (the questionable nature of that logic being understood) would imply that the Democrats (who seem to push this issue more) are more prone to oppressive governance.

Is that a really reasonable thing to suggest?
Click to expand...

It may be useful in your analysis to detach the reason for which a law is proposed from its likely effect. A law might be proposed for a laudable reason, reducing violent crime by reducing the instruments with which such crimes are conducted. That the motivation is laudable doesn't indicate that the proposed law is reasonably calculated to achieve the end an advocate seeks. If reducing legal held arms serves primarily to disable prospective victims of violent crime or assure violent criminals that their hobby just got safer, the good intent if the advocate isn't pertinent.

As to the matter of oppressive governance, in the American context I would approach the issue from the other end, protection of the individual rights one holds against government. In matters of speech, religious and freedom of association, proposals for restrictions arise primarily from those who place less value 1st Am. protections, though the politically conservative may be said to have a free speech blind spot where symbolic mistreatment of the flag is concerned. The more conservative may be said to be more likely to have a blind spot on the rights of criminal defendants, though in places dominated by democrats a democrat prosecutor is likely to have a view of criminal defendant protections essentially indistinguishable from those of a republican.

In the matter of 2d Am. rights, it seems fair to conclude that proposals to shrink the right held by the individual will necessarily shrink the area of liberty held by the individual and grow the power of the state to disregard or encroach on that liberty.


Except for that last bit, these are generalisations and on each observation, you will find exception amongst office holders. When you reach beyond office holders to people who simply identify with one party or another, the variety will be greater.
 
An armed resistance movement need not defeat the military forces of a government on the field of battle to be successful. Easy? no. it is not, but it is not impossible, for if it were, they wouldn't be so worried about it.
Click to expand...

Sure enough, The Taliban have basically kept the most powerful military in the world chasing tails all over for the better part of Ten years.
The only thing that ever defeats an insurgency ( other than killing every one)
Is if the insurgents decide to quit. As long as they have the will they can continue to resist.
An Army in the field cost lots and lots of money.The insurgents just wait until the cost out weigh the gains. They win.
 
44AMP said:
The beauty of the concept of an armed populace being able to overthrow a tyrannical government is that, as long as it is believed to be capable of doing so, it will never need to actually do so.
Click to expand...

That is a succinct statement of the political value of a right with an insurrectionist theory behind it. So long as a government allows citizens a generous sphere of liberty and power, the ways to influence government are so much cheaper and less bloody that it will be unreasonable to resort to arms.

As Glenn notes, historical expression of that theory have arisen where people are deprived of the better alternative. An incentive to the state to allow better alternatives is a political and legal value, the very opposite of a call to imminent insurrection.
 
One who argue that their little sliver of use is protected or legitimate, but the other guys are just gun nuts don't help. That such a poor argument was made doesn't make people who shoot hedonically an enemy of the right.
Click to expand...

Yes that's correct, I've done my fair share of arguing against gun nuts too. But this particular thread is about the attempts to soften the edges of the AR15 in order to make them seem like the sporting aspect of gun ownership is more legitimate than, let's say, a gun hoarder. Is the sportsman more entitled to the right to own an MSR than a guy that owns it to project his family, property and livestock?

Let's assume that any one of these weapons will most likely never be actually used as a weapon, does that eliminate the core principal behind the RKBA? I argue no.

A good chunk of the weapons of war in the inventories of the armies of the world are never actually used in battle; many never come out of storage. Some are used in military competitions. I competed in brigade level crew served weapons completions many times... They were quite fun and sporting... Didn't change the M60 into something else.
 
The Times is totally antigun at the top levels.

They see the AR as a weapon of war and evil, that it is semi and not fully auto is irrelevant. The gun choir thinks it is significant distinction but it is not for antigunners. Arguing that the AR is not an assault something is not useful. Recall that Patton thought the Garand of smaller capacity and semi was the greatest battle implement.

Thus, the Times doesn't care about the what we think is PR (assault blah, blah) and regard the MSR at a cover up for weapons of war and evil.

I recall, as I have said before, some guy on Guns and Ammo TV waving a fully auto M4 vs. a semi and making a big deal that the semi wasn't evil - and implying the full auto was.

Show someone not in the choir, folks at a carbine match, using a semi and the distinction will not be important to them. The full may be most evil but it doesn't make the semi 'nice'.

In a study of genocides, a starting point is that the victim population lacks means to defend itself. As mentioned, it is the potential of significant armed resistance that moderates government excesses. Good point.
 
Sportsmen have done plenty of damage to the RKBA.
Click to expand...

.....as have many other types of gun owners. Seems there are many out there that don't care about the rights of others as long as folks leave their rights alone. The biggest threat we have is those among us that alienate or divide us. CWCers slamming OCers for exercising their rights. Recreational shooters slamming hunters and vice versa over their choice of weapons. There are many types of firearms I don't own and types of shooting that I do not participate in, nor do I have any interest in. Still does not mean I don't support the right of others to. Trashing fellow gun owners and their practices does much more damage to our RKBA than any silly moniker like "Modern Sporting Rifle".
 
One of the big points that is usually missed (often deliberately) about the AR (or any other military style) "Modern Sporting Rifle" is that, they are not just one, or the other.

It's should not be "no, they aren't evil assault weapons, they are Modern Sporting Rifles", it should be "no, they are ALSO Modern Sporting Rifles".

Of course, this cuts no ice with the anti's, and usually flips them right on to the "nobody needs..." arguments.

"Nobody needs 30 shots to kill a deer" or something like that. The majority of things in life are things "nobody needs". Criminal misuse by deranged individuals does not give you (or I) the moral right to ban possession of an item.

Modern Sporting Rifle is a generally useless attempt to make people who hate our views "not as upset" about our guns. It is an attempt to have "peace in our time", and like all such, fails when the other side decides it is no longer convenient to agree.
 
Sportsmen, many times will vote for gun control measures, was'nt meant to bash types of gun owners. I'm just trying to keep it focused on the sporting aspect.

I feel that if gun ownership is considered as sporting purposes then the 2 amendment protection goes away.

The Constitution States:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...


The definition of arms is:
arms
ärmz/
noun
1.
weapons and ammunition; armaments.
"they were subjugated by force of arms"
synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions, matériel
Click to expand...
 
RR said:
Sportsmen, many times will vote for gun control measures, was'nt meant to bash types of gun owners. I'm just trying to keep it focused on the sporting aspect.
Click to expand...

The problem you observe isn't in their capacity as sportsmen, but in their capacity as voters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top