Very good article on AWB written by a Democrat!

The author's estimate of 1.5 million AR-15's in civilian hands is much lower than the estimates I've seen, which range from 8 to 20 million.

Other than that small quibble, a very well-written and organized article. Other gun bloggers could learn a lot from that guy.
 
If I read the article correct Tom, it was an estimate of 1.5 million ARs during implementation of the 94 AWB.

Edit: Favorite write up on future AWBs I've read so far.
 
The author's estimate of 1.5 million AR-15's in civilian hands is much lower than the estimates I've seen, which range from 8 to 20 million.

He's referring to 1994 numbers. I'm sure it's gone up quite a bit since then.
 
Erm, I understand my states laws. I was simply asking what you meant. I figure a lot of people simply put bullet buttons on when they go out in public
 
Here's another well written and thoughtful article by an established liberal writer. You will notice that not once does Sam Harris mention the 2A, yet he accurately describes why all this gun-grabbing blather will not do anything other than irritate the lawful American.

The Riddle of the Gun : Sam Harris
 
Thanks, Al - that is a great article.
It was, until the point at which he called for stricter gun laws while admitting they'd have little or no effect on crime.

That's the crux of what we're going through now. Most of the folks pushing various sorts of controls in the wake of Sandy Hook know their laws will do little beyond punishing the law-abiding, but they push them anyway.

I might be a little less disgusted by their morbid attempts to turn tragedy into political capital if I thought their motives were more noble.
 
Getting a gun license could be made as difficult as getting a license to fly an airplane, requiring dozens of hours of training. I would certainly be happy to see policy changes like this. In that respect, I support much stricter gun laws. But I am under no illusions that such restrictions would make it difficult for bad people to acquire guns illegally. Given the level of violence in our society, the ubiquity of guns, and the fact that our penitentiaries function like graduate schools for violent criminals, I think sane, law-abiding people should have access to guns. In that respect, I support the rights of gun owners.

Tom, I suspect you are referring to the bolded part above? Which, if taken entirely out of context does say what you imply.

I just didn't read it quite that way.
 
I sent the article to some and got flack on the defense against tyranny part being stupid and the training. I don't like the defense against tyranny part at all. I do like people getting trained to carry - I think that is a moral imperative. Requiring it is something that I go around on at time.

I do like the beginning though.

Glenn
 
I haven't read the article yet.

While I own an AR-15, I am sure I could live without it. If someone offers me enough, I'll sell it and probably won't replace it.

Nonetheless, I oppose a ban on this and similar weapons because . . .

When a substantial portion of your population wants something, or wants to do something, all making it illegal does is create a new business opportunity for organized crime and gangs. They do business with violence and bribery. They spread death and corruption. They destroy our society.

Alcohol destroys many people and their families. Prohibition did not arise out of thin air. However, the effects of prohibition were even worse than the abuse of alcohol, and we were wise to abandon the experiment.

Drugs do the same. However, the War on Drugs has been a failure. All we've done is increase the level of violence and employ a lot more cops.

There are laws against gambling and prostitution. They don't work. They just fill the coffers of criminal organizations, corrupt officials and make society worse.

Banning semi-automatic rifles is going to do the same thing. So will doing anything that makes them difficult to own.

It's a big mistake.
 
Back
Top