Definitive answer on the "AR w/ removed disconnector" issue

[smutna_krabice]

Hi guys,
maybe you've heard what is going on in the EU: right now, the European Commision (akin to Soviet Politbyro) is pushing for a Directive COM2015(750), which would ban 99% of semi-autos, European-wide (ARs, Glocks, CZs, AKs, everything.)

Substantial portion of this push is based on claim that semi-auto, civilian variants of rifles like the AR-15 or AK could be "converted back" to full-auto within "minutes" and thus "represent danger to public safety" and must be banned. This is based on "expert opinion" from last year, which is based on this Youtube video (yes, Youtube is how the EU gets "expert opinions"):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQMruhGF4Fs

Now, as a local RKBA organization member who happens to have a gunsmith certificate from the CZUB, I've been asked to make an "expert counter-opinion", which I did. I explained in detail that you would really need an automatic lower and automatic trigger group with auto-sear, which are illegal, and that converting and timing "civilian" AR-15 lower to full auto lower is so difficult and requires black market parts anyway that all criminals buy black market AK's from the Balkans instead and banning legal guns makes no sense.

Which, with auto-sear issue "off the table", brings us to the disconnector issue: I claimed that without disconnector, the rifle would - due to following bolt to battery - either fail to shoot or shoot so unreliably it would be completely useless for any criminal.

However, a friend suggested that this is not true and removing the disconnector would actually cause the rifle to go full-auto, albeit not very reliably.

I don't want to do silly experiments and I don't have "real" AR-15 anyway, only M&P 15-22 and Sweeney's "Gunsmithing the AR-15", so I had to rely on anecdotal evidence. And this is what brings me here: some sources, including gunsmiths, support the position I came to, i.e. removing the disconnector would cause the rifle to jam, not fire and get destroyed, or, in fringe percentage, fire few shots and then get jammed horribly.

Other anecdotal evidence, however, suggests that some rifles with removed or damaged disconnectors were able to shoot on and on with "two or three round bursts" etc., and although unreliably, only with easily user-removable jams like FTB, FTF etc.

Could you bring some clarity into this so that the EU's anti-gun-expert-group ("Small Arms Survey" and "Safeworld" NGOs - akin to Brady's -, italian criminologist and paranoid Swedish, Italian and Finnish LEOs) wouldn't be able to easily disprove our RKBA document?

My thoughts:
1) Is it possible that the ARs which fire bursts with disconnector out are all pre-<some date> made?
2) Or possibly that this only occurs on ARs which use some "automatic" parts, eg. "automatic hammer" or so (which Sweeney discourages for this reason)?
3) It wouldn't really be a feasible explanation that these "burst w/o disconnector" incidents are all linked with using pistol primers in reloaded ammo, would it?
4) Or do you think that the people who claim to have had a "practically usable" burst-firing AR due to disconnector problems were simply over-stating and their rifles were really so unreliable POJs that we could safely brush the whole "disconnector" argument off the table anyway?

Thanks
your Czech RKBA fellow

 

[Aikibiker]

I can't imagine that would be safe at all.

Removing the disconnector would allow the hammer to follow the bolt as it moves forward. The AR-15 uses a floating firing pin and locks the bolt via rotation that does not start until the bolt is all the way forward. If the weapon did fire it would be without the bolt locking up.

There is no way that could be safe to the shooter and could cause a catastrophic malfunction. Or a kaboom as we call it.

 

[smutna_krabice]

I know it wouldn't be safe, but that is not the issue.

The issue is that "EU experts" are saying "ban ARs in Europe because it's easy to make them go full auto".

I am saying "no, you would need illegal auto-sear and auto-lower for that, removing disconenctor wouldn't do."

But when the EU would "google" the sentence "AR full auto removed disconnector", they would get results when few people in the US claim their rifle with removed/damaged disconnector worked as full-auto just nicely, only with occasional jam.

So what I am asking is: could you help me out proving beyond reasonable doubt that there is a logical explanation why these "I removed disconnector and rifle went auto" testimonies are irrelevant?

 

[Shovelhead]

But when the EU would "google" the sentence "AR full auto removed disconnector", they would get results when few people in the US claim their rifle with removed/damaged disconnector worked as full-auto just nicely, only with occasional jam.

The "I saw it on the internet so it must be true" defense.

 

[smutna_krabice]

The "I saw it on the internet so it must be true" defense.

...which the EU is using as an "evidence" to ban and nationalize our guns – and which I, therefore, need to prove to be wrong.


I have an idea: would anyone know of some Colt, Armalite, S&W or other major AR-15 manufacturer's document which would "officially" say that regardless of disconnector modifications, the rifle cannot be converted to full-auto?

Such a "stamped document" would be enough to prove the "I saw it on the internet evidence" wrong.

 

[Sam1911]

I don't know if those manufacturers would give you such a document. The truth is (always) something in between. Modifications of a disconnector can make some guns "double" or "triple" fire, usually unreliably. We had a case here in the US a few years ago where someone was charged with transferring an unregistered machine gun because a match rifle malfunctioned. Read here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=375570

Even with our BATFE working diligently to prove him guilty it took a lot of effort to get the gun to do what they said it would.

But guns CAN be modified to do this. It isn't really all that difficult. It just isn't quite as simple as these ban proponents are saying it is.

...

But more to your point: You really don't need a letter to prove what you're saying. If ANY government in the EU cared at all to discover whether these claims were true they could quite easily procure an AR-15 and remove the disconnector and see for themselves. They could fire 10,000 rounds (single shot, ha ha) to prove to themselves that it won't do what they think. What you, or a manufacturer, or people in other countries might say about it wouldn't matter at all in comparison with the tests ANY law enforcement agency or government bureau in the EU could do very simply on their own.

Further, the details of converting a semi-auto firearm to full-auto are very different from one gun to another. Some are indeed very simple to convert (if you know exactly what you're doing). Some are very simple to get to malfunction dangerously, but in a sort of full-auto mode. Not a single one that I know of (that is common in the US at least) will do so with only a part removed.

 

[Speedo66]

I sincerely hope some experts here can give some definitive answers to this gentleman in support of his cause, i.e., to prove these weapons are not easily or inexpensively able to be converted to full auto.

It's a small world, and any actions taken in Europe are sure to be pointed to here at a later date by some group looking to block their possession as evidence of the inherent safety deficiencies of these weapons.

 

[Sam1911]

Other anecdotal evidence, however, suggests that some rifles with removed or damaged disconnectors were able to shoot on and on with "two or three round bursts" etc., and although unreliably, only with easily user-removable jams like FTB, FTF etc.

Does it really matter? A rifle can be quite deadly in the hands of anyone inclined to use it for violence. Any repeating rifle is substantively just as capable of being used to kill lots of people quickly as others, and full-auto capability doesn't really change that.

(The real purpose of full-auto is not that it allows you to target and kill enemies at 600 per minute, but that it can put multiple hits on A target a little faster, OR it can be used for area-denial by saturating an area with shots to keep the enemy's heads down while your team maneuvers. Neither makes them more deadly for attacking unarmed people, e.g. terrorism or crime.)

However, a gun that jams and has to be cleared over and over is a HUGE problem for anyone trying to shoot multiple targets quickly. Our soldiers are trained to use full-auto fire very sparingly and to rely on single aimed shots for almost everything. (Not counting dedicated machine gunners who have specific roles.) A reliable semi-auto is many times more capable/deadly/effective than a full-auto that jams every few rounds.


But I'm sure in your area, as in ours, the idea of "full auto" is a very scary thing to the many, many people who don't know any better and can be used to frighten them into accepting bad laws.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I recall the "fun" I had adjusting my son's AR adjustable target trigger, a balancing act between overtravel, sear hammer engagement and disconnector hammer engagement. Without disconnector engagement - same as removal of the disconnector - the hammer followed as the bolt closed while the trigger was depressed without enough force to fire the cartridge. (I used primed casings w/o powder or bullets to do safety checks.)

If the semi-auto AR were "readily convertible" to full-auto, the US ATF would have banned it as ATF did ban the Spitfire and other guns that were actually easy to convert.

For safety reasons, removing or disabling the disconnector usually results in a gun that won't fire since the disconnector is the link between the trigger and sear. In designs like the AR, the geometry of hammer/striker and bolt prevent the firing pin from striking the primer with enough force to fire the cartridge if the disconnector is removed or broken. You do not want a .308 or .223 cartridge going off before the bolt has closed and designers take that in consideration.

I do not take gun advice from show-offs or pranksters on the Internet or Youtube, because I know "You Can't Lie on the Internet"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bufTna0WArc
Bon jour

 

[barnbwt]

"Substantial portion of this push is based on claim that semi-auto, civilian variants of rifles like the AR-15 or AK could be "converted back" to full-auto within "minutes" and thus "represent danger to public safety" and must be banned."

I was under the impression it was because certain member states have rather lightweight demilitarization requirements for dummy/display firearms. Like, drilling a hole in the barrel, or welding a plug into the muzzle. Yes, in such a case, reactivation could take mere minutes.

Also, any --I mean any-- semi-automatic can be converted to fire full automatic. The system of any closed-bolt gun (also, many nations do not have bans on open-bolt guns, which are even more easily converted to full auto) requires that the sear be released after the bolt flies home; all that is required is some part or modification to alter this process so it occurs automatically rather than with a reset of a trigger disconnector. Now, controlled semi-automatic --that controlled by the trigger pull/release-- is much more complicated, but I doubt that distinction is recognized by Brussels.

It ultimately depends on how far they wish to take their gun bans; if an open bolt SMG is too readily convertible, a weakly demilled display gun is next in line, followed by any semi-automatic with a safety sear, followed by any semi-automatic. Even some manually operated guns can be made automatic, like a lever-action using the spoon gas-paddle mocked up by Browning, or a SAA pistol from the mid 1800s with the firing pin bushing removed (primer will back out against the hammer, cock & advance the action, which will fall onto the next chamber).

Oh, and any semi-automatic with a reciprocating charging handle can be made full auto with a shoe-lace; our ATF once tried to register these items and threatened to prosecute gun owners found with short pieces of string or twine in connection with their firearms for a period of ten years.

Hopefully sanity prevails and the EU simply evaporates in the face of Russian/terrorist aggression, and nations once more focus on what is best for their own citizens, rather than the edicts of an un-elected plutocracy.

TCB

 

[MtnCreek]

I didn't read the entire thread, so I shouldn't post, but I will anyway.

The disconnector holds the hammer back while the carrier moves. If the disconnector was not there, the hammer would fall once the bolt/carrier passes it on it's rearward stroke. When the bolt/carrier returned forward it would hit the back of the hammer stopping the rifle. Jammed and done.

 

[smutna_krabice]

barnbwt:

As for the "reasoning", see for yourselves - page 49 of this official "Final report" by "VVA Consulting":
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/8385/attachments/4/translations/en/renditions/native
Note especially the reference "136", which leads to the mis-understood youtube video on which policeman swaps legal AR-15 lower for illegal full-auto lower.

As for what you're saying about the open bolts etc., yes, I know that. See attachment for the original analysis, extensively reworked since then (after consultations, I withhold the information about open-bolt guns in current version, because that would certainly cause their ban and I'm not a NRA to sacrifice other gun owners unless there is really no other choice).

As for what you've heard about the EU's directive, though, that's a masquerade.
The story is quite darker. It might do well for you all to know it because it might be re-used on your side of the ocean too. So...


The story of the EU gun-ban attempts

In 1991, the EU adopted a Directive 91/477/EHS (forced, as all Directives are, upon EU member states under the threat of sanctions), which adopted minimum gun laws. It introduced 4 categories of weapons: A - banned, B- subject to approval, C - subject to compulsory registration and D - unrestricted, banned things like JHP ammo and for a while, most people were happy.

But in 2009, gun-ban activists started to really push for disarmament of EU's civilians: Britain, for example, was repeatedly pushing for reduction of the categories to just 2: "Banned" and "Subject to approval", where all real firearms would be banned and replicas and airguns would be subject to approval. Thanks, London.

Anyway, quite a few years ago, the European Commission (henceforth "EC") decided that in addition to the 1991 Directive, there should be some "Common European standards on deactivation of firearms". The "stakeholder", who had the responsibility for creating and implementing such common standards, was... The European Commission itself.

Yet the EC simply neglected it's own duties and for years, it let the Slovak republic keep an extremely loose "deactivation" standard. That standard enabled anyone to order a brand new, full-auto assault rifle and have it "converted" into "theatrical replica" firing blanks from it's original chamber (like 7,62x39 Blank) simply by drilling a hole through the barrel and filling it with steel pin. Such "deactivated" rifle would move from the "A" category (meaning banned) into the "D" category (meaning un-registred, freely available to anyone of 18 yrs of age.)

In 2015 Charlie Hebdo attacks, one of the culprits had in his possession one such "theatrical" CSA Vz.58 "converted back" to fire live rounds. He didn't use it for the attacks – they've all used AKs smuggled from the Balkans –, but the EC has seized the opportunity and suddenly "remembered" about the "common deactivation standards". These were used as a reason to push for a new Directive which would "update" the current Firearms Directive.

But that was just a trick for the public. See, ever since early 2010's, UN-related anti-gun activists have been pushing for gun-ban in EU. So in 2013, the EC established an "expert group" which was supposedly tasked with "tackling illegal smuggling of firearms". That was just a cover, though: internal EU documents show that ever since the group's inception, one of it's 3 main tasks was to "reconsider which weapons should be moved into the A category." Translated: decide which weapons to ban and confiscate. "Fighting illegal gun trafficking" was just a pretext to look pretty to the general public.

This "expert group" had a panel of experts. Two of these were representatives of the sporting firearms industry, e.g. break-action shotguns and repeating rifles, who don't care for semi-autos too much.
Nine more were national LEOs bringing their "concerns".
And three more were renowned "independent experts from universities", who, what a coincidence, all happened to be anti-gun activists! (And these anti-gun activists are receiving more than a MILLION british pounds each year from the EU alone and hundreds of thousands of GBP more from countries like the UK, to be clear.)

This "expert group" needed to legitimize it's gun-ban. So it ordered a survey: "Eurobarometer". In the survey, 80% of respondents told them to go to hell and keep the firearms laws as they are.

But that was not the desired outcome, so the "expert group" ordered another survey, with smarter questions, and asked the general public how afraid they are of firearms, implying that automatic Kalashnikovs are not banned even though these have been banned since 1991.

That, off course, generated the "proper results" and in 2014, the EC has moved in to ban semi-autos – all the while reassuring all the shooters that they promise they don't want to ban anything, just tackle firearms smuggling. Liars.

Also, media campaign was started, based on claim that "Each decade, 10,000 Europeans are killed with guns." Can you believe it? Since 1 thousand dead people per year in 500 million area was not enough, these people just conveniently counted the death toll not per year, but per decade. And news outlets reliably repeated this number.

But this 2014 attempt failed because the RKBA organizations mobilized and fought back.

Ever since, the EC "expert group" was preparing for another offensive – and then came the 2015 Paris/Bataclan attacks. The "expert group" seized the opportunity and within hours (!) came with the already finished proposal and argued to "push it into legislature in shortened process without peer-review or reevaluation". "Because terrorism", you know.

And again, they needed a masquerade. So they claimed that "nobody wants to ban legal guns, this is only about common deactivation standards". But that was another lie, for on page 19, the Proposal goes:

(i) in Category A <banned>, the following points are added:
"6. Automatic firearms which have been converted into semi-automatic firearms
"7.Semi-automatic firearms for civilian use which resemble weapons with
automatic mechanisms

That, off course, bans 99% of semi-autos, because even to nearly every pistol, there exists a full-auto variant which "resembles" the original model.
But that isn't all: the Proposal also says that air rifles, airsoft rifles and even kid's toys "with physical appearance of firearms" must be registered with the Police, otherwise their owner is committing felony.

 

[Tirod]

Modifications to the disconnector are not reliable.

Second, the auto sear is the primary means of making it full auto - with it removed it cannot reliably be done.

As for disconnectors or triggers in general, those that have them are the real issue, and any model gun with one would have to be banned on the notion they could be modified.

Here is the rub - A gun with a fixed firing pin and some method of capturing the bolt when open could then be full auto. Much more likely and easier to accomplish than monkeying with the disconnector.

The vote is just a knee jerk reaction to terrorism and won't accomplish a thing, overreaction to imported full auto guns being available illegally. Pass-a-law politics over enforcement that wasn't effective in the first place. It's politics over common sense to cover up incompetence or even deliberate lax enforcement, which is the real issue. Modifying guns is a red herring meant to distract the populace.

 

[taliv]

mtncreek, that might be true if it passed the hammer, but it does not.

smutna, as I'm sure you're aware this is an incredibly complicated question because there are a bazillion different parts from different companies that could change the answer.

For example, see the different kinds of carriers and hammers



The behavior will depend on which combination you have.

To your point, if you used the AR15 style instead of the M16 style, the notch on the top left of the AR15 hammer will catch the firing pin on the unshrouded bolt (the top one where you can see the back of the firing pin). This was specifically designed to prevent what is essentially a hammer follow from firing the gun again. But with the m16 parts, (and i'm not talking about the auto sear) it's much easier to make it full auto.

Which of course begs the question, what types of parts are popular in europe. I have no idea. Keep in mind many AR15 mfgs in the US use the m16 style bolt carrier and various flavors of hammers without the notch.

 

[smutna_krabice]

Taliv: thanks, that's what I needed to hear.

The notion about the notch on the "auto-hammer" deciding whether the hammer in the "bolt-follow" scenario gets jammed by the firing pin or not explains the "internet anecotal evidence".

I know about the differences between AR-15 and M16 in hammer and trigger from Sweeney's "Gunsmithing the AR-15", so if you think I could blame the "internet evidence" of "burst fire due to disconnector" on the M16 parts (w/o auto-sear), it confirms my position and I can spread our "local-NRA counter-propaganda".

In Europe, civilian-style bolt carrier group and triggers are most prevalent. Even if they were not, though, this notion alone would suffice to "redirect" the EU to focus on "evil M16 fire control group" parts" and leave the AR-15s and other rifles alone.

Once more, thanks for your help.

 

[taliv]

I'm not really in a position to advise, just showing in those pictures examples of parts that will and parts that won't. I would certainly hate to see the EU ban m16 carriers and hammers for no good reason. And again, there are SO many more variations out there...

If I were you I would probably point out that at least the US military and probably the EU ones hardly ever fire their guns in full auto. They almost always aim and pull the trigger for every round because it's so much more effective. The point is there's no reason to be more scared of an M16 than an AR15.

The danger of that of course is they may really be afraid of everything that makes loud noises and so they may push to just ban it all. But either way, I think governments should make decisions based on facts, and we should not just spoon feed them the facts that support our cause.

 

[smutna_krabice]

Taliv: unfortunately, that is not an option.

As I've written above, gun-control activist have been infiltrating the EC for years, pushing for total ban of all semi-autos and promoting "British-style-gun-ban".

We're now in "damage control" mode* and sacrificing certain fire control group parts - which are quite probably banned already - is a little cost compared to total ban on the firearms themselves.

Since the fight is based on psychological shortcut "Kalashnikov = terrorism, and therefore, automatic fire mode = terrorism", we have to prove that 99% of firearms isn't readily convertible to full-auto and thus ought not be banned, because it would cost billions of EUROs.

And because the EU "experts" from VVN Consulting have chosen the AR-15 platform as a example of how easy it is to convert to full-auto, we are working hard to prove that it is the other way around and converting the AR-15 to full auto is damn hard and since it requires "illegal" full-auto parts anyway, criminals would get the whole rifle on the black market and banning the "100% safe" civilian ARs makes no sense and only costs Treasuries money.

We don't have the luxury of using any other than pragmatical arguments and counter-psychology, because there is no 2ndA in Europe, semi-autos are only allowed in handful of EU member states, and very few politicians are pro-gun.
On the other hand, vast numbers of EU top-ranking politicians are "former" communists, marxists and maoists, which renders them prone to emotional pseudo-arguments and gun bans. Not talking about the Green Party, which ultimately desires to disarm everyone, including the policemen, and plans 50% unemployment to "save the nature".

__________
*We are trying to move into offensive by targeting the activists themselves, though: we've identified statements of the "Small Arms Survey" to the end that "it is better to disarm ISIS victims and let them be raped, tortured and murdered than to allow them having guns", so we're launching a campaign to discredit them.

 

[hq]

Semi AR:s built on full auto M16 lowers are somewhat common, at least in Finland. As far as anything that fires from closed bolt is concerned, the baseline has been how the gun will fire in practise instead of in theory. Once auto sear is removed, flipping the selector to full auto renders it a single shot rifle. Hammer following the bolt simply does not have enough power to detonate the primer.

As a sidenote, today the finnish parliament grand committee decided to oppose EU firearms directive and in case it's ever enacted, to disregard it completely in national legislation. Not bad. It seems like I'll get to keep my M16:s, SMG:s and MG42:s legally after all.

 

[smutna_krabice]

hq: cool. The Czech parliament has, unfortunately, turned down such a proposal. Well, EU subsidies - what can I say.

I hope you guys would still fight against the proposal, though ;-)

At least because the roots of this particular Directive proposal can be traced to Finland:

Some semi-automatic firearms can be transferred into automatic firearms and thus represent a real threat to security[134], as stated by representatives from 2 Member States (FInland, SwEden), with the process of conversion being relatively straightforward in some cases, like that of a Glock semi-automatic pistol[135]. The same happens for certain semi-automatic rifles, with online demonstrations to convert <the AR-15> from semi-automatic to automatic in roughly one minute[136]

Looks like you guys have a rat in your midst

Since I know Finnish government considers this Proposal Directive as a threat to national security which would undermine the army reserves training, it would be good if you could find and expose who that treacherous finnish "Representative" was.

 

[Sam1911]

Once auto sear is removed, flipping the selector to full auto renders it a single shot rifle. Hammer following the bolt simply does not have enough power to detonate the primer.

Hence my point from before. ANY EU agency or government could go prove the point to themselves at any time, if they cared to actually know. If this VVN Consulting group "proved" it by citing a Youtube video, how could you possibly DIS-prove it any more conclusively than simply getting the regulators to do some extremely simple testing to prove it definitively for themselves?

It seems almost like you're saying that a whole collection of nations are about to subject themselves to new laws based entirely on a highly questionable YOUTUBE video. Not on any actual testing or findings of FACT. If that's the case -- if they're so willfully naive as to pass laws that affect millions of people based on what amounts to second hand hearsay info -- what reason would they have to stop and listen to your counter points?

Even our own much-maligned BATFE actually tests things out and ("by hook or by crook" as we say) manages to physically prove their points.

I can find dozens of YouTube videos that "prove" the Earth is flat, too. Would they accept those when making air-traffic control policies?

 

[Onmilo]

More European logic of banning bad things will make all the bad things go away.

 

[hq]

Looks like you guys have a rat in your midst

Yep. We did. The former foreign minister was a massive soviet sympathizing relic who was (literally) educated and sponsored by none other than East Germany until early 90's. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erkki_Tuomioja) After his miserably failed attempt at disarming insurgents in middle east by acting as a mediator he returned to national politics, declared that noble freedom fighters with soviet-supplied AK:s pose no threat to world peace but regular law-abiding hunters and shooters in western countries do, hence have to be disarmed by force at any cost. And I'm not even exaggerating.

But I digress. To sum up the actual subject, there's virtually no way of converting civilian AR15 to full auto without M16 fire control parts and a DIAS, or a lightning link. Occasional, unreliable slam fire with all risks involved most definitely doesn't count.

 

[smutna_krabice]

If that's the case -- if they're so willfully naive as to pass laws that affect millions of people based on what amounts to second hand hearsay info -- what reason would they have to stop and listen to your counter points?

Oh, this one is actually easy: if they use to demagoguery and emotional manipulation, so shall we.

The point of the "Evaluation/Analysis" for which I was verifying the disconnector staff is in telling the public the truth...

...and putting the EuroParliament members in kinda awkward position: "you've been lied to by anti-gun activists who want to make you look like an idiot. Now you know better. And so does the public. So, you only have two choices: claim you've been fed false data, accept our position and save your face - or continue on with your ban attempts and thus look as either an idiot or a villain."

It's only the matter of making the analysis publicly known enough, and trust me: we are working hard on that. We have sympathizer in the EP, we have sympathizers in major internet newspapers, we will make an English version and put it to our colleagues from Firearms United (something like "Emerging European NRA")... Situation might look bad, but there is still hope.

 

[taliv]

if they use to demagoguery and emotional manipulation, so shall we.

you guys have to fight your own battles your way, but that's not what i'd recommend. the NRA takes a lot of heat and loses a lot of credibility over its own demagoguery. we'd be better off just being fact based.

 

[smutna_krabice]

taliv: we have the facts 100% ok - that's why I was triple-checking here, after all. But in order to survive, we need to play on emotions and image as well as our enemies: otherwise, we would be out-financed, out-gunned, out-numbered and out-performed. This way, we are only out-financed.

You need to understand how the EU works.

There are 750+ euro-MPs who mostly care only about retaining their salary and job - which means looking good before the cameras. These are like the "Highest soviet" of the USSR: they have no legislative power whatsoever and could only "approve" proposals from higher.

Higher, there are 28 euro-commisioners, which are like the Soviet politbyro (and indeed, usually these folks are marxists, communists or maoists.) European Commission is anti-democratic, because it has official rule that noone who doesn't share the "values of europanism" (think socialism) cannot become euro-commisioner.

And then, there are thousands of lobbyists, activists and media.

Every now and then, some lobbyist or activist needs to ban something - either to get his company into more favorable position by banning or harming his competition (REACH, ROHs), or to pursue some agenda (like banning guns).

So he goes to the media and creates an emotional Cause, which implies that if the euro-MPs wouldn't ban this or that, they will look evil and incompetent, lose popularity and never get reelected.

The only counter-tactics available, therefore, is to persuade the euro-MPs that no, it's the other way around: if they DO ban this or that, they will look evil and incompetent, lose popularity and never get reelected.

And "looking evil and incompetent" is all about emotions and how the facts are presented.

But you're right, demagoguery wasn't the right word.