WSJ: Private Equity and the AR15

[CraigS]

....
The one thing I continue to ponder and ruminate on is, what is the end game for those who wish to remove firearms from private ownership and have us all driving EV's powered by the sun and wind, while we snack on crickets (and yes I believe all this bullshit is part and parcel of the same ideology). Really, what are they trying to drive towards? I don't have an answer (because I just want to be left alone to live my little life) - but I know this doesn't end well for us if they get their way.

One theory I have heard is that they have a certain number of total earth population that they think is the best for 'saving' the earth. So they work toward that and one problem for them is that the number is lower than the current population. So, to reach that number, it will be easier for them if we are all unarmed. Not at all sure I buy into that but it does explain some things like covid (the BS about it starting in a market, some think it was a test case to see how far we could be pushed), like all digital currency so they can control what you buy, like the current crime situation so eventually they can half a$$ed justify marshal law, like inflation which is hitting real hard right now in the cost of food and personal transportation, as well as fuel prices raising the price of everything else, etc.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I actually thing the situation is clear. The 2nd Amendment existed and exists for 1. Defense of self and related; 2. Defense against tyranny; 3. Defense against foreign threats and domestic insurrection. This suggests weapons fit for citizen/military small arms usage. I'm not in the we have right to a nuke camp. The United States is one of the few places that doesn't believe (or at least some do) that the organized state has a monoply of force. A monopoly of force is usually the definition of the organized, 'official' state. Most of us - on p-f I think, believe that an armed populace is a meaningful deterrent to tyranny. Now we may disagree on the source of upcoming tyrannies. I believe the left and right extremes are as in the old PoliSci circle, they meet in the middle. I do not buy (from my hobbyist interest in military history and elective electives in such), that we are helpless against 21 B-2s or nuclear submarines.

The state does not want its citizens to not be dependent on it. Arms are a back up for when the state fails to defend us against threats and certainly crime. The risk is that when there is no state law and order, we return to a vengeance society of never ending feuds - as we are seeing in urban areas. Certainly, the increase in purchasing implies that faith in the state for crime and tyranny defense is failing. 17% of NYC residents say they want to buy or bought a gun in a Sienna Poll recently. The increase in female and minority purchases speak to that.

The following article is a good take on it. The author makes an interesting point of defense against minor and major tyrannies. The latter being the Feds but the former being state and local regimes that for various reasons (acting against minorities, labor strikers, etc. can be deterred from a wide spread use of force). The use of arms in the Civil Rights movement, well documented by Black scholars makes this point but ignored by both the left and right in the gun debate. The former denies the role of the armed citizens and the latter doesn't like that set of armed citizens.


Philosophia (2021) 49:437–458
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-020-00212-7
The Right to Self-Defense Against the State
Jasmine Rae Straight1
Received: 22 August 2019 /Revised: 26 February 2020 /Accepted: 14 April 2020
# Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Abstract
The Second Amendment is accepted as protecting a right, but it is commonly accepted
that the right is not unrestricted. I will explore the most commonly suggested restrictions
proposed by gun control advocates and show why these restrictions to the Second
Amendment are unjustifiably high, especially when compared with restrictions we
accept for other Constitutional rights. I argue that these restrictions violate a central
function of the Second Amendment—to enable the people to protect themselves against
a tyrannical government. The three restrictions I will be discussing are: (1) licensing
requirements for gun ownership, (2) gun tracing with a national database of gun
owners, and (3) concealed carry restrictions.

The complexity I spoke to was not the complexity of the concept. It is that actually clearly and decisively instantiating our rights is complex. I rail against the current Scotus for not doing so and consider Bruen a partial mess as it open a historical precedent as a bag of worms. Instead of simply saying bans are unconstitutional, we have lower court judges, some justices and experts digging around for history which will be compelling for them. If Scotus doesn't act clearly now and justices change (Thomas might have a killer corruption issue lurking out there), they will overturn Heller and Bruen or so weaken them with qualifications as to be toothless. Stare Desis is dead, esp. since Dobbs.

The time scale of the up and down, en blanc, remands, making the Circuits do their job is just a major risk. A local judges says X and it is frozen for years.

Oh, well. Israel told its CHL types to carry for the upcoming Holy Days. NYS bans carry in houses of worship. My outraged comments to the papers didn't make it in. Wonder why?

PS - read an article somewhere that it is predicted that we have a massive population drop after 2100 AD. Like I care. I'll miss USPSA having 63 divisions.

[cosermann]

Funny that the article is mostly about Bushmaster, who we were just (trash)talking about in another thread. It did show this pic from the 1995 NRA Convention, which looks exactly like my first AR (although mine was an RRA). Proves my point that, whether Bushmaster was any good or not, there weren't a lot of other options besides DPMS, RRA (which wasn't well known until they got a DEA contract) ...

If I remember correctly, the Big 5 "back in the day" were (alphabetically): Armalite, Bushmaster, Colt, DPMS, and Olympic Arms. Of those, Oly Arms is no more.

RRA didn't come into it's own until 1996-ish (although the brothers were putting together smaller quantities of ARs for others before that a couple/few yrs).

Some of this depends on one's definition of "back in the day," as for some of us it's farther "back" than others!

[cosermann]

I actually thing the situation is clear. The 2nd Amendment existed and exists for 1. Defense of self and related ...

Philosophically, this is where it all starts; the right to life, and the right to the means to defend that life. Other levels (ex. the militia, etc.) are just various levels of community aggregation of the individual right to life.

We see this reflected in a number of the state constitutions. One example using language from the New Hampshire Constitution: "[Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty..." Also, "[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state."

[jh9]

20M guns is a lot for an ambitious dem/lefty to aspire to confiscate and destroy. I would never have predicted the degree of the widspread ownership of the black rifle.

Gift link doesn't work for me - is 20 million the article's estimate of how many ARs are in circulation in the US?

I honestly would have thought the number would be higher.

[fatdog]

Gift link doesn't work for me - is 20 million the article's estimate of how many ARs are in circulation in the US?

yes, the link expires every 24 hours, here is a fresh one

[okie john]

Once upon a time it was standard practice to write articles with the "point" being to just inform the reader of an event or history.

This is the Wall Street Journal, so the audience is business people and the subject is how the business of black rifles grew in the US. It's also advance publicity for a book by a couple of WSJ writers.

Cameron McWhirter and Zusha Elinson are reporters for The Wall Street Journal. This piece is adapted from their new book, “American Gun: The True Story of the AR-15,” which will be published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux on Sept. 26.

I think that if you go beyond Bushmaster, several conclusions become inescapable:

• Progressive politicians are trying to re-negotiate the social contract. Few citizens agree with where this is headed, and more types of people are buying guns that ever before.
• Many people who support gun control are shocked to find that it also applies to them. Defunding the police, antifa riots, COVID restrictions, etc., created an entirely new class of gun owners. Note on the graph how gun sales stay at historic highs in the years during which these policies were in effect.
• People buy black rifles in election years, and the more a candidate pushes gun control, the more guns people buy. Note how the Biden candidacy was omitted from the graph.
• People buy fewer black rifles when pro-gun politicians are in office. Note how the graph refers to Secretary Clinton's candidacy (not Mr. Trump's victory), and the slump afterwards. Also note the post-Obama bump. The relatively small dip after Mr. Biden's election may be due to COVID restrictions and the fact that the economy was in the tank, but numbers remain strong compared to previous years despite these speed bumps.
• People buy black rifles when politicians propose banning them. Note the spikes in 1994 (AWB), after Sandy Hook, and during the 2016 and 2020 election cycles.

None of this reflects well on the efficacy of traditional gun control measures or rhetoric.


Okie John

[0ddl0t]

I'm not in the we have right to a nuke camp.

Why not? There were no such historical restrictions...


Now if nukes and chemical weapons were illegal for the US military to own, I could see them being illegal for citizens too. But if we're going to say the 2nd Amendment is a defense against tyranny (which was its main reason for being) how can we allow such a disparity in force?

[dogcaller]

Thanks for sharing the free link. I’ve had ambivalent feelings about the AR for the past 10-15 years, and this article brings to light some of the underpinnings of my ambivalence. I bought an Eagle Arms EA-15 in 1993, shortly before the AWB. I couldn’t afford it. I was young, newly married, broke, etc. My only center fire rifle was an SKS I bought for $100 and my buddies and I would go out in the desert and blast rocks with Russian surplus or Norinco x39 that was >$0.10\rd.

But the AWB was pending, the price had jumped from ~$650 to $1300, I didn’t want to miss out, so I charged it. I used it for target shooting, coyote hunting, etc., and I loved it—still do. Some of my shooting friends had one, some didn’t—they were far from ubiquitous. I eventually bought a Wilson Combat flat top upper during the ban (legally) so I would have an optics platform. I was pretty well set. The AWB sunsetted (not a real word) and I had the itch for an M4gery, so I made one of those. And as the marketing shifted, as described in the article, and prices raced downwards, they became more common among people whom I did/would not consider serious enthusiasts. I will admit that there is some bias and snobbery in my views, but it is predicated by the unease I feel when I see some of the jackasses at the range, at the gun store, etc. I have no problem with reasonable and prudent people—it’s the mouth breathers, the loons, the “look at me” tough guys. A short trip through other gun forums is enough to remind us all why PF is the best (by FAR). Some of those wing nuts make me cringe—and many of them *are* enthusiasts—perhaps too much so.

Pandora’s Box has been opened. The ubiquity of the AR, its image in society, its very real efficiency, combine to make a real problem with no good solutions. The ARs in my safe are as safe and useful as the one(s) in yours, because we are safe and useful. I’m definitely not for a ban or anything like that. And there’s also a pretty big part of my brain (perhaps the part not dealing with all of this cognitive dissonance), that wishes we didn’t have X-million of these extant; that it was back to the way it used to be— or at least the way I perceived it to be—with many fewer ARs out there. I wish all owners were like, well, like us.

[Tabasco]

Funny that the article is mostly about Bushmaster, who we were just (trash)talking about in another thread. It did show this pic from the 1995 NRA Convention, which looks exactly like my first AR (although mine was an RRA). Proves my point that, whether Bushmaster was any good or not, there weren't a lot of other options besides DPMS, RRA (which wasn't well known until they got a DEA contract) and Colt.

Attachment 109729

Although I'm not really sure what the article's point is, other than some interesting history. And it just stopped at Sandy Hook. Although it did say it's an excerpt from an upcoming book, so maybe they'll address the rise of Aero, PSA and the high end boutique market.

A friend of mine got one of those BM 16" with no flash hider. It doubles as a flame thrower.