Slick WaPo propaganda piece on the nuclear-level power of the AR-15

Remember the antigun fear mongering before the 1968 Gun Control Act about the .22 Short RG10 revolver: shoot some one in the chest the .22 Short zips around and round the body wrecking havoc along the way and ending up in the leg or head or abdomen.

Oh and the pot metal wonder gun would sometimes blow up like a handgrenade and kill the shooter (very often a poor person who couldn't buy anything better for self defense).
[The gunpowder in a .22 Short is around 1 grain about 1/437th of an ounce. The explosive charges in US Mk2 grenades vary around 2 ounces or about 870 grains of explosive.]
 
Last edited:
Shawn Dodson said:
Problem is, based on the school's surveillance video, the shooter used a KelTek SUB2000 pistol caliber carbine.
Click to expand...

f you watch the body cam footage from the second officer to put rounds in her. He pulls the AR from her hands at the end.

*Warning link to cam footage from both officers.
.
 
Part of this has been the "demilitarization" of the US. Where only around 5-6% of the population has any military experience.

The remaining 95% learned everything they know about the military from movies, tv, and Call to Duty.

Which means they know less than Jon Snow, and he knows nothing!

So, this supermajority of couch-educated types cannot imagine a military not having a super-duper extra-super powerful ammunition. So, they can freely imagine that those supercool blasters in Halo or CTD are all in 900nitro express or some such-no recoil in the video game, nor fatigue humping gun and ammo, uphill, both ways, for days upon days without end.
 
The ballistics of the cartridge in question seem to change remarkably to suit the speaker. Rifles were a rarity until the coverage of the Bank of Hollywood and the Las Vegas shooting brought them front and center. Now that their magic powers are known, every deluded soul out there needs multiples. Not only Obama but the press and Hollywood continue to sell more AR and AK type rifles than any other influencers. If they want to prosecute those who advertise in unapproved ways, they should start with their own.
 
wayneinFL said:
I read the article, but what? It's not okay for kids to get shot with rifles. Agreed. Handguns are okay?

There's no weapon that's ineffective enough that I would hand one to a killer and let him into a school with it. It's not like an adult even needs a weapon to kill a 9 year old.

The problem is that you're letting a killer run around unsupervised. The solution- I don't know that there is one. But to think the solution is slightly less effective weapons in the hands of a killer- that's absurd.
Click to expand...

The fallacy is that there HAS to be a "solution" and that solution HAS to be "ZERO incidents".

That's a false solution. It cannot exist. Therefore it's the eternal braying point of those in favor of gun control because it can NEVER be satisfied and may therefore be used in perpetuity.

The REAL solution is to hold people accountable for their actions. Period. This recognizes that there will ALWAYS be people who will harm others and places the onus on THEM with respect to the consequences of their actions.

The ONLY way to meet the "solution" these people want is total tyranny. The anthesis of freedom.

To quote The Civil Rights Lawyer:

"Freedom is scary. Deal with it."
 
Great explanation, BreechFace ! Like times 2:
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?posts/12589965/

<standing ovation>


I've posted this before, the JPFO Genocide Chart, showing the effects of gun registration in various cultures:

https://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart

Some folks may not have seen it; worth checking out.

Appetizer:

In the 20th Century:

Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined.

Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals.

How could governments kill so many people? The governments had the power - and the people, the victims, were unable to resist. The victims were unarmed.
Click to expand...

Terry, 230RN
 
Last edited:
There's a story I read once about a guy who worked in a Wheel Barrow factory.

Every night he would leave the factory with a Wheel Barrow full of sawdust.

The guards at the factory knew he was stealing something but they couldn't figure out what. Every night they'd search the Wheel Barrow and sift the sawdust but they never found anything.

Finally the worker retired and several years later one of the security people ran into him on the street and asked him what he was sneaking out of the factory every night.

The worker replied "Wheel Barrows".

There are people in our country on both sides of the aisle who honestly believe that the only reason Communism hasn't worked is because America hasn't tried it.

They don't care if we know they're lying (And they are lying. They're not making these statements out of ignorance. They know how guns work. ) It's (for lack of a better term) an advertising campaign.

Do you think that it's coincidence that last night on station 19 the backstory was that somebody who was "Anti Reproductive Rights" drove a car into a crowd at the Abortion clinic at Grey/Sloan hospital?

Do you think it's a coincidence that both 911 Lonestar and the rookie are running story lines where they're looking for far right wing extremists who are making ammonium nitrate bombs?

Have you not noticed that on FBI almost every other week they're looking for they don't call them far right wing extremists but they're Pro Second Amendment gun nuts making "untraceable" ghost guns with exploding bullets and they all wear red hats?

It's no different than a multi-millionaire Hollywood star telling you how evil the CEO of Walmart (who is worth probably less than they are) is.

If they can get enough people to believe what they're saying and appeal to their emotions America will DEMAND the repeal of the Second Amendment, I guarantee it.

I give it 20 years tops.
 
Last edited:
` The main idea of articles like this is to create an easy target weapon type to ban. It is an excuse to ban AR or other military style weapons. Notice the pistol carbine that the shooter had in addition to an AR was called an Assault weapon also. It is not about facts. That a .223 or 5.56 NATO round is more lethal than a 9 MM round is true and making the argument about that is just taking bait. Claiming that any AR round is less lethal isn't helpful even if true which it isn't in general. It is about making a type or class of weapons bad guy weapons. What they want is to have support for controlling any weapons as a steppingstone to more control.
 
DadOfThree said:
I never realized the knockdown power of my AR. I think I am gonna take it buffalo hunting
Click to expand...

Well, W.D.M. Bell used the .22 Savage Hi Power - 70 gr at 2800 fps - on Forest Buffalo which are much smaller than Cape buffalo and liked it for Scottish red stag.
And there was a missionary who contributed to Savage advertising by killing a tiger with one.
But there were some intrepid Bwanas and Sahibs who bought into the velocity hype and got, stomped, gored, or eaten when their "Imp" or even their .280 Ross did not impress really big game.
 
I've put a lot of 5.56 rounds in bipedal bodies. And I still don't want to use 5.56 to kill a deer unless I have to. Just feels too "weird" to me. But to call the AR some super nuclear round that rips bodies apart is either willful ignorance or willful misinformation. I don't know which is worse.

CapnMac said:
Part of this has been the "demilitarization" of the US. Where only around 5-6% of the population has any military experience.
Click to expand...
The number I have seen (and use) is less than 0.45% of the US population has military experience. The percentage of combat troops is far lower.
 
Last edited:
"If they can ban one, they can ban them all."

We are starting to recognize that truth has little to do with propaganda. It's about making as many advertising impacts as they can.

And repetitive impacting is the key to successful advertising --that is, creating the illusion of truth.

Unfortunately, since the media in general has succumbed to the long-term repetition of the "antis," we have little opportunity to counter each individual "impact" any more.

So we resort to picking apart the technicalities of their advertising in our forums and feel satisfied in "a job well done."

But posts on THR aren't votes in elections or letters to editors and lawmakers.

You might check to see if your legislative bodies allow you to become a "Volunteer Lobbyist" so you can buttonhole them directly.

"If they can ban one, they can ban them all."

Terry, 230RN
 
herrwalther said:
he number I have seen (and use) is less than 0.45% of the US population has military experience. The percentage of combat troops is far lower.
Click to expand...
It's a complicated number.
We have about 2 million in present Service, perhaps another 2 million in Reserve & Guard service, to give us the fraction 4/340 or around 1.1%
We also have between 4 and 6 million more who are Prior Service, if only measuring 18-45 years old as "military age." If we include all retired, we get closest to the 4% number, which is still a scant 13-13 millions.

In 1949, "all military" was near 22 million, and that versus a US population of 160-180 million, around 12-15% which is a generally accepted "high water mark" over US history.
 
CapnMac said:
It's a complicated number.
We have about 2 million in present Service, perhaps another 2 million in Reserve & Guard service, to give us the fraction 4/340 or around 1.1%
We also have between 4 and 6 million more who are Prior Service, if only measuring 18-45 years old as "military age." If we include all retired, we get closest to the 4% number, which is still a scant 13-13 millions.

In 1949, "all military" was near 22 million, and that versus a US population of 160-180 million, around 12-15% which is a generally accepted "high water mark" over US history.
Click to expand...
I am reminded of a discussion on the net a few years back over the Purple Heart, "What does it mean?"

The consensus was, it means he went somewhere hundreds of millions of his fellow Americans didn't go -- and he got close enough to the fire to get burned.
 
Night Rider said:
If they can get enough people to believe what they're saying and appeal to their emotions America will DEMAND the repeal of the Second Amendment, I guarantee it.

I give it 20 years tops.
Click to expand...

I don't ever see the needed number of states going along with a constitutional amendment to repeal it, even if large majorities nationwide want to get rid of it. And if they did, you'd have massive civil disobedience, look at when liberal CT passed an AWB, few complied with it.

As for me, I lost all my guns in a tragic boating accident. ;)
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
The fallacy is that there HAS to be a "solution" and that solution HAS to be "ZERO incidents".

That's a false solution. It cannot exist. Therefore it's the eternal braying point of those in favor of gun control because it can NEVER be satisfied and may therefore be used in perpetuity.

The REAL solution is to hold people accountable for their actions. Period. This recognizes that there will ALWAYS be people who will harm others and places the onus on THEM with respect to the consequences of their actions.

The ONLY way to meet the "solution" these people want is total tyranny. The anthesis of freedom.

To quote The Civil Rights Lawyer:

"Freedom is scary. Deal with it."
Click to expand...

Good post, and I'll add I as a gun owner feel no need to respond to this crime, any more than I'm required to respond to any of the thousands of crimes that happen globally every day.
 
Paul7 said:
I don't ever see the needed number of states going along with a constitutional amendment to repeal it, even if large majorities nationwide want to get rid of it. And if they did, you'd have massive civil disobedience, look at when liberal CT passed an AWB, few complied with it.

As for me, I lost all my guns in a tragic boating accident. ;)
Click to expand...
It takes 3/4s of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment. That's 38 states. So the anti-gunners couldn't afford to lose more than 12 states. As of now there are 26 states with Constitutional carry.

The anti-gunners have a VERY steep hill to climb, and it's getting steeper every year.
 
DadOfThree said:
I never realized the knockdown power of my AR. I think I am gonna take it buffalo hunting
Click to expand...

Who needs a .577 Tyrannosaurus elephant/rhino gun if the AR-15 is as thermonuclear as WaPo Propaganda says it is?

Demonizing and exaggerating are tools of prohibitionists. The Library Journal review of Carl Bakal's "NO Right to Bear Arms" 1966 observed that his book contained truths, half-truths, and insinuations; bias was the most important ingredient and was painfully obvious; no attempt was made to present a balanced picture. (A review by Library Journal, mind you, vetting books for librarians. Not the American Rifleman.) When I read that book taking notes, it reminded me of Fredric Wertham's "Seduction of the Innocent" advocating banning comic books to stop juvenile delinquency. OR the local Dry Forces defending the 1953 local option prohibition of alcohol (which was repealed in 1968), same crusading rhetoric, same sneering disparagement of skeptics..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top