Tags
AR-15, Gersh Kuntzman, Helen Urbinas, masculinity, nuclear weapon, PTSD, USAF, wimp
Gersh Kuntzman
credit: knowyourmeme
NOTE: Back in June of 2016, I wrote a satire for Bearing Arms. Back then Bob Owens was the editor, and was kind enough to post my occasional, unpaid contributions to the site. As it was Bob that gave me my start in blogging, I considered it a pleasure to be helpful. I miss him. That 2016 article, though humorous, exposed the mindset of far too many American journalists. As Kurt Schlicter has written, they really do hate us, and seem to have little idea of the daily reality of normal Americans, and for male–sort of–reporters, far less masculinity. I hope you enjoy this updated article:
I was going to write “it is a matter of faith,” among experienced gun owners that progressives know nothing about guns, nor do they care to know anything, but that’s not quite true. It’s also a matter of experience. Occasionally, a Progressive ventures forth into the soul-destroying and terrifying realm of guns, and barely escapes with his or her life and sanity, not that many of them could, upon demand, demonstrate sanity in the first place. Such a person is one Gersh Kuntzman, writing for The New York Daily News.
Mr. Kuntzman, a very brave reporter, sought out a gun dealer that would allow him to fire the gun most brutalizing to the shooter and most deadly in all the world. A .50 BMG caliber Barrett? A .500 S&W? A .50 BMG chambered for a revolver with a 2-inch barrel? A six-pound rifle firing a 30mm cannon round from a 20” barrel?
No. Much, much worse: an AR-15 in .223 Remington. What follows is not a parody.
It feels like a bazooka — and sounds like a cannon.
One day after 49 people were killed in the Orlando shooting, I traveled to Philadelphia to better understand the firepower of military-style assault weapons and, hopefully, explain their appeal to gun lovers.
But mostly, I was just terrified.
Many gun shops turned down our request to fire and discuss the AR-15, a style of semi-automatic rifle popular with mass killers such as San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook and Orlando terrorist Omar Mateen.
Mr. Kuntzman ignores the fact that few mass shootings in America have involved AR-15s. In fact, an AR-15 was not used in the Orlando attack. Two of the attacks with the highest body counts used commonly available handguns. The Fort Hood jihadist used a single handgun. The Virginia Tech killer used two common handguns, including one in .22LR caliber.
I’m sure many gun dealers these days would be wary of any reporter, particularly one for the NYDN, asking to do a story on the AR-15. Gun owners and dealers have all had more than their share of reporters misquoting them, even lying about them, and firearms, a notorious recent example being Katy Couric’s malicious editing in an anti-gun documentary.
Kuntzman reports that one Frank Stelmach, a gun dealer in Philadelphia agreed to host him. Kuntzman depicts Stelmach as just short of a gun control advocate, and ala Couric, suggests that Stelmach was unable to answer some of his morally superior questions. By all means, take the link to see for yourself. I do pity Mr. Stelmach who will doubtless have some ‘splainin’ to do [Stelmach did ‘splain, and in doing so was far more credible than Kuntzman].
Kuntzman is also, unsurprisingly, horrified at how easy it is to obtain a firearm:
Helen Urbinas
Very easy. In fact, as Philadelphia Daily News columnist Helen Ubinas showed today, you can get a military weapon in seven minutes in this country.
And how long do Kuntzman and Ubinas think one should be required to wait to exercise a fundamental, unalienable right? Waiting periods, by the way, have been demonstrated to have no effect whatsoever on crime, which is why so few states require them. Perhaps, just to be safe, reporters, the pen being mightier than the sword, should be required to undergo a month long background check before publishing an article?
Actually Ubinas’ story claims that it took seven minutes from handing the clerk her driver’s license until the federal background check was complete. The fact that it took considerably longer than that to complete the sale and leave with the rifle is buried much more deeply in the story, which is a standard anti-gun/gun owner diatribe. She also falsely claimed the Orlando shooter used an AR-15. To be entirely fair, he used another brand of semiautomatic rifle–take the earlier link for that information. That’s Ms. Ubinas in the photo holding her new AR-15. She appears, somehow, to be holding on to her sanity, though doubtless, she is on the ragged edge. She immediately gave the gun to the local police, which may have spared her Mr. Kuntzman’s trauma.
Kuntzman tells readers that Stelmach thinks the AR-15 good for “cops, soldiers, hunters and target shooters,” and also thinks the rifle fun to shoot. But not so for poor Mr. Kuntzman, who suffers so you won’t have to:
Not in my hands. I’ve shot pistols before, but never something like an AR-15. Squeeze lightly on the trigger and the resulting explosion of firepower is humbling and deafening (even with ear protection).
The recoil bruised my shoulder. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary case of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.
Even in semi-automatic mode, it is very simple to squeeze off two dozen rounds before you even know what has happened. In fully automatic mode, it doesn’t take any imagination to see dozens of bodies falling in front of your barrel.
“The recoil bruised my shoulder,” and poor Mr. Kuntzman, even with ear protection was humbled and deafened.
NOT a girly-man
Return with me, gentle readers, to those thrilling days of yesteryear, circa the mid 1970s, my first time on the range in the USAF with the M-16, an actual fully automatic rifle. Though I was only a lad of 6’ and 155 pounds, I was able to fire the fearsome weapon, actually on full auto, and semiauto, without the slightest discomfort. One of my most vibrant memories of that experience was a Sgt. demonstrating the fearsome recoil of the weapon by placing the buttplate in direct contact with his nose and firing several rounds.
That valiant NCO must have had stainless steel ears and a titanium nose, perhaps due to war injuries, because not only were no injuries visible on his nose–it wasn’t even a little red–but he showed no sign of hearing damage, nor did he appear to be humbled, carrying on as a fully functional and genuinely terrifying drill instructor without skipping a beat. Despite being substantially less a man than I currently am, I too escaped physical and psychic injury, incurring not the slightest bruise. The same was true of my fellow recruits, many of whom were substantially less substantial than I. It was obvious the .223 cartridge was more powerful than the .22LR with which I was intimately acquainted–it was a bit louder and produced a tiny bit more recoil–but the horrors experienced by Kuntzman were nowhere to be seen on the range that day.
More masculine than Kuntzman?
credit: freetheanimal.com
As a fellow member of the patriarchy, I worry about Mr. Kuntzman’s masculinity and self-image. I have, on numerous occasions, introduced females, including little girls no older than 10 and no more than 70 pounds, to the horrors of the AR-15. Granted, they had to fire from a supported position, lacking the strength to support the 7-pound rifle for long otherwise, but after firing many rounds, their universal reaction was one of delight–they found the little rifle’s accuracy and ease of use pleasing–and not a bruise among them. The same is true of adult women, many no more than 110 pounds sopping wet.
Mr. Kuntzman seems a bit delusional in other ways. Unless he is left handed and fired the rifle from his left shoulder, there would have been no brass flying past his face to disorient him, and the odors he reports might be experienced when firing a black powder rifle, but not a rifle using modern ammunition. And what, I wonder, does “destruction” smell like? And explosions? “Loud like a bomb”? I can only hope a sensitive fellow like Mr. Kuntzman is never within aural range of an actual explosion. Judging by his reaction to the report of an AR-15, which is mild indeed among rifle cartridges–and even some handgun cartridges–he’d be unlikely to survive.
PTSD? From firing a few rounds through an AR-15? Really? Perhaps Mr. Kuntzman would be well served by doing a bit of research on what actually constitutes PTSD.
Mr. Kuntzman’s prose gives the reader the impression he fired a fully automatic rifle, as he differentiates between full and semiautomatic fire, without specifically saying that. Yet in one paragraph he claims to have fired the rifle “just a few times,” and in the next, he fires “two dozen rounds” so rapidly he has no idea what happened.
Mr. Kuntzman also imagines “dozens of bodies falling in front of [his] your barrel.” No wonder gun dealers were reluctant to allow him to shoot anywhere near them. I certainly wouldn’t want him to be anywhere near me on a range. Actually, I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near such a range. Maybe not in the same county…
But that’s Mr. Kuntzman’s world, a world inhabited by a great many reporters, and many Progressives [I know: the same thing]. It is a world of obsession and irrational fear, of loathing of inanimate objects and their owners. However, it is interesting to note that during the Age of Obama, many Democrats, Progressives, what have you, have, for the first time in their lives, purchased guns, and failed to experience the horror that so terrified Mr. Kuntzman. They actually discovered that shooting is great fun, confidence-building and empowering, and yes, some of these guns were AR-15s. It would seem confidence is something of which Mr. Kuntzman is very much in need.
In reality, the AR-15 is the most popular sporting rifle in America and has been for years, a trend that shows no sign of slowing. Its .223/5.56mm cartridge is of intermediate power–it is not a “high-powered rifle”–and one reason for its popularity is its very mild recoil and report. One of my other memories of firing an M-16 for the first time–triangular hand guard!–was hearing the main recoil spring, through my hearing protection and the report of the rifle, cycling the bolt group as I fired. It’s amazing I could hear that despite the explosions that so disoriented Mr. Kuntzman, no? Reality also reveals that rifles of any kind are very rarely used in any kind of crime in America, and the AR-15 family represents a tiny portion of an already tiny statistical category.
Somehow not suffering from PTSD
credit: ar-15.com
I wish Mr. Kuntzman well, and a speedy recovery from his self-inflicted trauma. I do, however, worry about his ability to cope with the modern world. I sincerely hope that should he ever use power tools or drive a car he first engages adult supervision. Perhaps there ought to be a law…?
Kuntzman, obviously smarting from a torrent of incredulous responses to his article–some even linked to my little satire–quickly wrote a follow up article:
The gun debate is also a gender war.
In all my years in journalism — coming up on 30 (thanks) — I have never received so much angry mail as I did after yesterday’s story, “What is it like to fire an AR-15? It’s horrifying, menacing and very very loud.”
I don’t mind spirited debate, but many correspondents told me that even expressing an opinion about today’s high-powered weaponry is off-limits to those of us who don’t own such guns.
To reiterate, the goal of the story was simply to share with readers my experience of firing an AR-15, which very few of them have done. I found the sheer power of the weapon horrifying. I found the noise deafening and anxiety provoking. I was frightened by its potential for rapid, catastrophic, Orlando-like carnage with similiar weaponry. Using an AR-15 made me irritable and jittery for hours afterwards. To me, it felt like a bazooka.
Oh dear. He’s fired a bazooka? I thought an AR-15 horrified him! Apparently, Mr. Kuntzman learned nothing from his shooting experience, and from those that reasonably took him to task:
Yes, this weapon scared the crap out of me. And it should scare the crap out of all of you, too. An AR-15 is a weapon of mass destruction, a tool that should only be in the hands of our soldiers and cops, as Rep. Seth Moulton wrote in the Daily News on Tuesday. I don’t think there’s anything unmanly about pointing out this fact.
She might disagree…
He also addressed his masculinity, somehow equating it with the First Amendment (do all reporters do this?)
Besides, if masculinity is defined by the power to commit violence on a wide scale, I proudly choose femininity. At one time, ‘being a man’ meant standing up for what you believe in — and against injustice. By that definition, we need more real men in power taking on bullies like the NRA, which seeks to bolster the Second Amendment by shutting down opponents’ right to the First. We can’t even debate guns in this country, thanks to the gun lobby.
This is a classic case of being in a hole but refusing to stop digging. Masculinity is defined by harnessing violence, by keeping it under control until it is needed for good, even then using it judiciously. Kuntzman’s critics were merely pointing out that a man terrorized by one of the lightest recoiling rifles in existence is not exactly displaying manly fortitude. The NRA does not, in any way, advocate against the First Amendment, nor does it try to suppress anyone’s freedom of expression. It merely advocates for the Second Amendment by pointing out the misstatements and absurdities of people like Mr. Kuntzman. In time-honored progressive fashion, Kuntzman drew a completely absurd comparison:
credit: http://www.jkpod.com
But what if a weapons manufacturer could fashion a handgun that would fire a nuclear blast — an atomic version of an AR-15, if you will. It would look like a gun, but it could kill thousands instead of dozens. Like a rifle, it’s one of many arms that we are allowed to keep and bear. But would we really stand idly by as people buy a nuclear gun in the name of the Second Amendment?
No, we wouldn’t, and under long-standing law, we do not. I’d challenge Mr. Kuntzman to find a single instance of any rational, serious person lobbying for individual ownership of nuclear weapons. It’s obvious Mr. Kuntzman thinks his opponents resort to such ludicrous thinking, therefore, it’s fair game for him to do the same.
Yes, I’m a wimp. I simpered because my experience with the AR-15 bruised me, body and spirit. But there’s nothing unmanly about reminding my readers that mass murder is much easier to commit with a semi-automatic killing machine than it is with a hammer.
If that makes me a girl, well, maybe we should have a girl running the country.
That didn’t work out so well for Mr. Kuntzman either. I leave you, gentle readers, with the true story of one of my all-time favorite students, a brilliant and funny girl, an ROTC cadet. She was all of five foot nothing and 100 pounds, but in a wrestling match with a much taller and heavier male cadet, pinned him, and exclaimed: “all right; it’s official. You’re a pussy!”
The boy, properly chastened, toughened up, and she graduated with honors, quickly aced a bachelor’s degree and is currently in medical school. Sadly, Mr. Kuntzman, who embarrassed himself, appears incapable of learning as much as an embarrassed teenaged boy and manning up, while seven-year old girls everywhere continue to shoot AR-15s without psychic or physical damage, enormously enjoying the experience.
That’s your media, gentle readers.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
For me, it was Army basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, and my experience was similar. A sergeant demonstrated the light recoil of the M-16 by firing with the buttplate against his chin, and then against his crotch.
I trained and qualified with the M-16. And I’m a 5’8″ , 140-pound wimp.
I mean, my experience in training was similar to yours, not to Kuntzman’s. I don’t have PTSD from firing a .223/5.56mm at paper targets.
He writes “Even in semi-automatic mode, it is very simple to squeeze off two dozen rounds before you even know what has happened. In fully automatic mode, it doesn’t take any imagination to see dozens of bodies falling in front of your barrel.”
Fully automatic mode? Is he claiming that the AR 15 has a “fully automatic” mode?
This person is not just a wimp, but a liar.
Perhaps his masculinity confusion is expressed in his name.
Actually I was more traumatized when an ejected casing from the airman’s M-16 on my left went down my shirt. Many expletives followed.
But if I may be so critical to observe likely the only valid point Mr. Kuntzman made that you failed to comprehend. I’ve mentioned it more than once in my own posts in the past. There seems to be this idea among “Second Amendment gun enthusiasts” that they should be entitled to own any personal weapon in use by your average soldier… in order to maintain “freedom parity” just in case the government needs to be overthrown; weaponry matches. After all, 2A says, “…the right to keep and bear arms…” and not being specific. So… with weapons technology advancing so rapidly… would it be ok for civilians to own “ray guns”, some phaser-like, non-combustible projectile weapon, or some other hand-held weapon, regardless of it’s devastating effect? At what point does it all stop? I believe that was Kuntzman’s point with that comment.
As a freedom-loving whack job, I say yes, if I can afford it, I should be able to own a fully- outfitted F/A-18, and any weapons system it will support. I should be able to own rocket-propelled grenades. And a phaser gets an unqualified hell, yes!
Along with that right comes the responsibility to respect the rights of others.
That said, if Mr. Kuntzman’s point was that only military and law enforcement should have semiautomatic rifles, I can only say I disagree. It’s not a valid point.
I am curious.. why is it with the gun-loving ilk that freedom depends entirely on the Second Amendment?
Dear Doug:
You’re citing facts not in evidence. No one is saying freedom depends entirely on the Second Amendment, but it is the sole part of the Bill of Rights that deters tyranny, and also speaks of the right of the people to overthrow a tyrannical government. The Founders were quite plain on this.
Then that begs the question… what tyranny? In fact, there hasn’t been one threat to the U.S. that was somehow deterred by the Second Amendment in our entire 250+ years. In fact, the all-to-common argument by fervent gun supporters has been this alleged example to Nazi Germany. Ok.. well, our Second Amendment didn’t deter Nazi Germany from declaring war on us… and we certainly didn’t defeat Germany because of our Second Amendment.
It doesn’t rest entirely on the 2nd (see the 1st). But tyrannical governments ultimately use men with guns to oppress and incarcerate their citizens. Fight fire with fire when no other remedy is available.
I’m trying to respond to Doug, but there’s no “reply” link under his post.
sigdoc captures the sentiment pretty well. My take is a little different, the amendments simply recognize rights that already exist. I could espouse my freedom to do anything that does not harm others using the same justification, and not have that idea dependent on the Second Amendment. The gun-loving ilk (for some of us ‘loving’ is a bit strong, we just enjoy shooting) are a bit sensitive about folks threatening their freedom to do something they enjoy. Again, it doesn’t depend on the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is a recognition of a right that already exists.
To address your earlier question about “where does it end?” Where does the restriction on weapons end? Complete disarmament for all civilians? Maybe only to the stage where Doug thinks that’s enough? Is a phaser less humane than a bullet or a club? Dead is dead.
My contention is that there are MANY gun owners who make such a HUGE deal out of protecting the Second as if it were going to go adios next week when there is NO historical evidence of anyone wanting to repeal or even amend it. It’s a big deal to tamper with any amendment. The implication, honestly, is that many worship the gun more than the Amendment itself because they fail to comprehend that if there are social concerns about weapons being used in mass shootings.. specifically the weapon of choice for mass shooters everywhere, the AR-15, then one might want to get on the leading edge of the debate rather than constantly defending when a defense is not necessary given the Second is not going anywhere. What’s the leading edge of the debate? The NRA should know better but for some reason that organization prefer to feed the fear to the membership. But if there was a show of empathy toward the problem.. recognizing that there IS a problem… and if the NRA has 30 million to toss into an election to get the likes of a Trump elected.. then there is certainly a few bucks for the NRA to show effort toward a national mental health effort, some basic compromise in trying to develop effective gun purchase restrictions… just plain show some concern. This will do FAR more than a bunch of gun-toting adults fear a bunch of kids who actually have the kahunas to challenge the NRA’s non-efforts.
Quit with the “from my cold dead hands” nonsense. Nothing is going to change that. If the NRA is going to work for its membership then it needs to identify more with the public and the problem in order to direct the emphasis away from gun restrictions. None of this entire debate is about “saving” or preserving the Second. It’s going nowhere. What you want is to shift public opinion toward the real causes and show you mean it in order to control any interest in imposing more restrictions.
Oh.. and a final note (there always is one)… this verbal trash that if somehow the Second were to be repealed or changed… that “freedom” is lost. Sorry.. our country is based upon a number of freedoms that in their entirety form our collective will and desire for freedom. My freedom is judged NOT on the fact I can own a firearm. An “attack” on the Second by others using freedom of speech is no threat to my freedom as an American. It’s just bombastic bravado when gun owners equate gun ownership to some special relationship to some “fight” for freedom and that they are any more patriotic than myself.. or some poor homeless person.
Dear Doug:
Come now, you know better. One of the most cherished progressive tactics is to use judges to write law that can’t be obtained through the normal legislative process. All if would take is a 5-4 vote on the Supreme Court and the Second Amendment would be a right on paper only, with no meaning in the lives of the law-abiding, and of course progressives would love to see this, and work toward it every day. You must know that too; you’re obviously paying attention to such issues.
As to the necessity of the Second Amendment, I refer you to The Federalist. The Founders had no doubt about it, and no doubt that tyranny was always possible. Even Hubert Humphrey admitted it.
As to repeal, you did read my recent article on retired Justice John Paul Stevens who recently called for the Amendment’s repeal? He’s certainly not the only one that would love to see that, but if you missed it, just click on the categories tab on the right sidebar, and select “firearms.” You’ll find it easily enough.
It is, by the way, no coincidence that all tyrants immediately disarm their citizens. The Founders spoke to that as well.
Doug, you haven’t been paying attention. There’s quite a few different approaches to limit gun rights without repealing the 2nd Amendment. One of the nastier (and most recent) is the AG of New York state hinting that credit companies cease providing services to gun & ammo sellers because those companies aren’t “safe.” I’m sure our esteemed host can cite the law, but the name escapes me just now.
There have also been attempts via lawsuit & local statute to impede or prevent gun ownership. One of the more amusing laws was passed by New York state, but amended when it was discovered they had outlawed the semi-auto pistols used by law enforcement agencies! Gun grabbers still file liability lawsuits, and state legislatures regularly try side-door tricks like taxing ammo purchases to make it too expensive to buy ammo
I could go on, but that’s a good start. One of the main reasons our 2nd Amendment rights are so healthy is that politically-active gun owners react so quickly to possible limitations; what you refer to as “verbal trash” and “bombastic bravado.”
“Social concerns” don’t impress me at all when you argue for limiting someone’s rights. That’s almost as bad as saying “do it for the children!”
The NRA doesn’t “feed fear” to anyone. The organization acts as a voice for the paying members, who are quick to protect their rights. The NRA, by the way, does show concern, but it’s immediately dismissed by the usual crowd of gun grabbers. Anything but total & immediate surrender will never satisfy the grabbers.
…Ask yourself why the Soviets, the Nazis, and every other totalitarian group’s first move is disarm the populace? It may seem silly to you, but look out the window. We see riots about a legal presidential election, college students who protest anyone not 100% in agreement with them, sometimes violently, and loud public calls for the limitation of unapproved speech and association.
You self-evidently trust the government. I don’t.
Ok.. I see you are one of the gun owners who thinks owning a gun assures something other than the understandable need to want to protect house and home. That is probably the most outlandish presumption for owning a weapon… that you, and your fellow gun owners.. are going to engage a governmental authority in some grand revolt to re-gain freedom like some crazy “Red Dawn” scenario. Uh huh. Wherever in our history have we actually been threatened from within? You thinking the reason we haven’t is because of you owning a gun?
I’m a gun owner too… even was a member of the NRA back in the day. I just think the debate or argument or whatever you want to call it for “defending” your right to own a gun is just alienating the general public. And this constant idea that “we need to defend our rights”.. plural? What rights need defending? Your gun going to assure our “rights” are being defended? Truly.. the focus of the debate has to shift if you want to make sure restrictions don’t get out of control.
Hi Doug,
First off, none of what I say is directed against you. I don’t know you and thus don’t know where you stand.
It is often said that “no one wants to take your guns.” This is such a lie. Lots of people want the repeal of the second amendment, and still more the restricting of arms even further. The problem with harsh restrictions is that only really motivated people will obtain them. Who would those very motivated people be? Probably the very people who will misuse them.
An accusation against gun owners is that they are afraid of the government turning terrorist. I think this is largely false. I fully believe a government will never turn terrorist while its people are armed. Its not until the said government tries to take them away that one has to worry.
For me, there are several reasons to own a firearm. To defend yourself (not from the government, but from individuals), to enjoy them (shooting can be very enjoyable), and to practice one of our oldest rights. Sure, I don’t need a 30 round mag, until the government want to stop my ownership of one. It’s not that I think the government will turn terrorist once 30 rounders are banned, but because that’s a very small chip in the liberty tree. Little strokes topple great oaks. It would be far easier to let them ban them, but the easy way is rarely the right way.
freedom isn’t free
Ignore your rights, the’ll go away.
I feel this is the true reason that pro gun guys make a ‘big deal” about such small matters.
Thanks and have a good one
Thanks for your civil remarks, Mr. Smith (I assume it’s “Mr.”). I support the Second as much as any other amendment.. I just don’t feel that support needs to be as vehement as many gun folks who seem to think it’s the most important amendment. Especially for the reason that somehow owning a weapon keeps nutcase tyrants out of the White House as if it were a deterrent. In the real world it is not. Just ponder it for a moment… 300,000,000 guns in a variety of calibers, with limited supplies of ammo in the basements of America, in the hands of no organized, cohesive force of any kind… not willing to be led or organized because they all have their own desires on pulling their own triggers, all understandably more worried about defending house and home and putting food on the table for their loved ones, is hardly a threat to deter any tyrant-wannabe.
Someone, somewhere is going to cripple America by taking down the internet and controlling the power grid. Your guns, my guns, won’t be able to do a damn thing to deter that.
Until the SCOTUS’s decision on Heller, the 2nd Amendment was not incorporated; i.e. applicable to state and local governments. McDonald struck a blow against Chicago as well on their limitations on the 2nd Amendment. Since all laws, regardless of jurisdiction, are considered legal and constitutional until challenged and overturned; not an overnight process, thus we see constant attacks on the 2nd. Why is it seemly only the 2nd Amendment that is constantly being attacked even though it has been incorporated. However, the freedom of the press was incorporated in the 1930’s and has been extended to include TV, radio and other media formats yet for some reason we don’t see challenges to that 1st Amendment clause. Now why is that?
I have always considered the 2nd Amendment to be the protector of the other Amendments, in particular the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution itself. The Founders believed that too and the British raids to confiscate arms and powder under the King’s orders was the final straw that ignited the Revolutionary War.
Doug: “…the weapon of choice for mass shooters everywhere, the AR-15…” Rly?
Oh.. I read your post on the AR-15 and how ignorant the public is (especially liberals) not knowing all the appropriate syntax, nomenclatures, ballistics, and “urban myths” in order to make an informed decision that they still hate the weapon. I saw your crime stats on weapons used which suggests that the public should learn to embrace the weapon and not hate it.
My quote you just made comes in two parts…
1. The last few mass shooters have indeed obviously preferred using the AR-15… and it seems to be increasing. I’m sure the survivors of those events are happy knowing that in the greater statistic the AR has NOT been the buddy shooter’s gun of choice.
2. I was using sarcasm.
You’re still missing the idea that the gun debate can be softened if the NRA/owners address it using public relations and not circle the wagons, wrap the flag around you, and lock & load.
Dear Doug:
No one is engaging in flag wrapping, though there is nothing wrong with that. All law-abiding Americans are doing, and that includes the NRA, is defending the Constitution. There are some things it allows, others it does not. There is no debate about what it does not allow unless the Constitution is Amended, or unaccountable judges make law rather than do their jobs.
Omar Mateen, Tashfeen Malik, Abdul Razak Ali Artan, Nidal Hasan, Syed Farook, and the Tsarnaev brothers all had something in common. And it was not AR-15 rifles.
Maybe we have never been threatened by a dictatorship from within. But what did not happen yesterday will not necessarily not happen tomorrow.
Former SCOTUS Justice Stevens openly called for repealing the Second Amendment. Howard Dean has said that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech. (“Hate speech” means any disagreement with the PC party line about anything.)
In the UK, a YouTuber was criminally prosecuted for making a comedy video of a dog doing a Nazi salute. A man was arrested for flipping off a traffic monitor camera. The government wants to prosecute people for viewing “right wing” (i.e., politically incorrect) websites. The PM has advocated dealing with terrorism by censoring the internet.
In London, the violent crime rate is worse than New York’s. The response has been to ban knives (they already banned guns), and to assign 1000 Metropolitan Police officers to monitor the internet, and to go after anyone who posts anything politically incorrect.
And, instead of saying that it can’t happen here, many liberals are openly saying that the US needs to be more like Great Britain.
Kyle Kashuv was harassed by Broward County deputies for posting a tweet of himself engaging in a perfectly legal activity with his father, on his own time. Those same badass deputies were cowering outside in the parking lot while a violent crime was being committed inside the school. As in London, Broward County law enforcement is about punishing Wrongthink, not about public safety.
Orwell intended “1984” as a warning. Obama, Clinton, Dean, Theresa May, Sadiq Khan, and Angela Merkel see it as a blueprint.
The First Amendment gives Gersh Kuntzman the right to make asinine statements about a .223 rifle being a WMD, or to conflate “semi-” and “fully automatic.” It also gives people who disagree with him the right to express their views as well.
“The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms.” -Hitler
“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS. Ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns does not serve the state.” -Himmler
“The right to bear arms is one more guarantee against a tyranny which now appears remote, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” -Hubert Humphrey
Dear Tom:
Quite so.
Actually, I should not have said that the First Amendment “gives” Kuntzman and his critics the right to express their opinions. It protects their right to freedom of speech. It does not “give” it.
The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to people. It officially codifies and acknowledges the inherent rights that we already have.
Dear Tom:
Quite alright. The Left tends to ignore the distinction for political reasons, but we know what you meant.
I have a couple comments. First some obvious ones. You don’t know loud until you’ve stood next to a 155mm howitzer firing charge 6 or higher. It’s even more exciting, in a bad way, if you happen to be near the impact of said rounds. And you don’t know recoil until you’ve shot at least a 20 gauge or better yet a 12 gauge. 8 years in the artillery. Partially deaf in one ear, and constant ringing in both.
The ar15/M4, etc are used by the military for a variety of reasons. And there are numerous articles and even books discussing, and criticizing that decision. Personally I think the 5.56 round is a bit weak. That’s why I have a carbine in 7.62. Of course there all kinds of discussions, arguments, on caliber choice. Just look up the numerous articles, etc, about the difference between 9mm, .40, and .45.
Just my 2 cents.
Dear Boris:
You’re spot on. What virtually every gun grabber fails to understand,, or ignores, is the .223/5.56 cartridge tends to be a mediocre performer in combat. Of course, their point is that the intermediate cartridge is essentially a weapon of mass destruction, so reality must, of necessity, be ignored.
Pingback: Journalists and ARs: Feeling In The Right Direction | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Capital Gazette Attack: Is The Media Capable Of Understanding? | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: An AR-15 Primer, 2019 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Too Stupid To Survive #16 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns And Liberty: Part 10, 2020 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: An AR-15 Primer, 2020 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Media Masculinity–Snort!–And The AR-15 | Stately McDaniel Manor