An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
I don't know about you guys, but he just sold me on getting a bump fire stock :0
And "seriously" ... if (a big "if" let's not kid ourselves) -- if I'm going to storm the shore of Constantinople to retake the City, it's going to be with a fully automatic assault weapon ... preferably an AK-47 ... because I'll need burst mode, not accuracy mode.
PS: "How 2nd Amendment Distortions Kill" by Robert Parry (October 3, 2017) https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/03/how-2nd-amendment-distortions-kill/
Having fired fully automatic weapons while in the military I can agree with his point that the fully automatic option has limited use. It seems to me that the point he actually made was against semi-automatic weapon in the hands of the public rather than being restricted to military, security, and restricted firing ranges that make these kinds of weapons available to the public on a limited and supervised basis.
However, I agree that the solution is not a broad-based gun ban that much of the left is proposing. It's like Prohibition and the War on Drugs. It will be ineffective.
The answer is in more specific legislation that addresses specific issues. For example, gun laws should be modified with regard to population, with different standards rurally, semi-rurally, suburban and urban.
A lot of the discussion now is about something regarding which the broad outline is more or less agreed upon, namely, that the public should not be permitted military grade hardware. The sticking point seems to be defining the boundary. I don't think there is much support for the public owing rocket launchers but semi-automatic rifles and handguns is another.
One sticking point at least is assault rifles. Even if they were banned, there are a lot of them floating around out there. That would just mean the price would go up, although they would also likely be more difficult to obtain. But that hasn't stopped the drug trade, nor did it stop the alcohol trade during Prohibition.
The problem may not be guns but Americans. Its' in the "water" (culture).
I don't understand why military grade weapons are allowed and sold tbh, there is no realistic use case of it.
No, you are not going to stop an out of control central government because you have a machine gun in your house, and the number of military trained organised militias with that kind of weaponry is not going to prevent it either. That's not how it works and much less with the current level of weaponry armies posses, we are not in the XVIII century. And the USA does not need a militia defence model like the Swiss neither.
Tom Hickey: My understanding is that the inventor of the "bump fire stock" is very aggressive in protecting his patent. The thing does not look that hard to copy and manufacture. If it works like they say it does, I see unlimited opportunities for gang-bangers and black market killer types to manufacture and sell them in great quantities.
Then, will the prohibitionists be personally responsible for all of the black market related murders?
From what I know about "modifications" there is a lot information about how to make various "upgrades" to stock weapons, and some of the more difficult parts to manufacture are available on the back market. No reason to think that will not be the case with bump price stocks.
It is very difficult to prohibit something that is in demand, as Prohibition, the war on drugs, and the illegal arms trade show.
The reality is that fully automatic weapons are mostly desirable for the macho effect of owing them. They are relatively useless other than for fire suppression or storming a close objective like breaking into a room without destroying it with a grenade.
Firefights use up an enormous amount of ammo quickly and are relatively inefficient. Not much needed even in the dark where targets are not visible since night-vision goggles and phosphorous to illuminate relatively large areas in battle.
The effect in the mind of the public seems to be mostly psychological, since most people are not acquainted with the combat use of firearms. They assume that militaries use fully automatic mode as rule. It's actually an exception for specific purposes.
Actually, in a squad most would be armed with assault rifles wth one person carrying a full-fledged machine gun for suppression.
7 comments:
I don't know about you guys, but he just sold me on getting a bump fire stock :0
And "seriously" ... if (a big "if" let's not kid ourselves) -- if I'm going to storm the shore of Constantinople to retake the City, it's going to be with a fully automatic assault weapon ... preferably an AK-47 ... because I'll need burst mode, not accuracy mode.
PS: "How 2nd Amendment Distortions Kill" by Robert Parry (October 3, 2017)
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/03/how-2nd-amendment-distortions-kill/
Crikey! I come from England and not even our police are armed. I couldn't imaging going into a shop and buying something like that.
Having fired fully automatic weapons while in the military I can agree with his point that the fully automatic option has limited use. It seems to me that the point he actually made was against semi-automatic weapon in the hands of the public rather than being restricted to military, security, and restricted firing ranges that make these kinds of weapons available to the public on a limited and supervised basis.
However, I agree that the solution is not a broad-based gun ban that much of the left is proposing. It's like Prohibition and the War on Drugs. It will be ineffective.
The answer is in more specific legislation that addresses specific issues. For example, gun laws should be modified with regard to population, with different standards rurally, semi-rurally, suburban and urban.
A lot of the discussion now is about something regarding which the broad outline is more or less agreed upon, namely, that the public should not be permitted military grade hardware. The sticking point seems to be defining the boundary. I don't think there is much support for the public owing rocket launchers but semi-automatic rifles and handguns is another.
One sticking point at least is assault rifles. Even if they were banned, there are a lot of them floating around out there. That would just mean the price would go up, although they would also likely be more difficult to obtain. But that hasn't stopped the drug trade, nor did it stop the alcohol trade during Prohibition.
The problem may not be guns but Americans. Its' in the "water" (culture).
Add another one to the paradoxes of liberalism.
I don't understand why military grade weapons are allowed and sold tbh, there is no realistic use case of it.
No, you are not going to stop an out of control central government because you have a machine gun in your house, and the number of military trained organised militias with that kind of weaponry is not going to prevent it either. That's not how it works and much less with the current level of weaponry armies posses, we are not in the XVIII century. And the USA does not need a militia defence model like the Swiss neither.
Ignacio the A/Rs have grown in popularity with hunters... in semi-auto... varmints/pest control.... coyotes, feral hogs, borrowing animals...
Tom Hickey: My understanding is that the inventor of the "bump fire stock" is very aggressive in protecting his patent. The thing does not look that hard to copy and manufacture. If it works like they say it does, I see unlimited opportunities for gang-bangers and black market killer types to manufacture and sell them in great quantities.
Then, will the prohibitionists be personally responsible for all of the black market related murders?
From what I know about "modifications" there is a lot information about how to make various "upgrades" to stock weapons, and some of the more difficult parts to manufacture are available on the back market. No reason to think that will not be the case with bump price stocks.
It is very difficult to prohibit something that is in demand, as Prohibition, the war on drugs, and the illegal arms trade show.
The reality is that fully automatic weapons are mostly desirable for the macho effect of owing them. They are relatively useless other than for fire suppression or storming a close objective like breaking into a room without destroying it with a grenade.
Firefights use up an enormous amount of ammo quickly and are relatively inefficient. Not much needed even in the dark where targets are not visible since night-vision goggles and phosphorous to illuminate relatively large areas in battle.
The effect in the mind of the public seems to be mostly psychological, since most people are not acquainted with the combat use of firearms. They assume that militaries use fully automatic mode as rule. It's actually an exception for specific purposes.
Actually, in a squad most would be armed with assault rifles wth one person carrying a full-fledged machine gun for suppression.
Post a Comment