WSJ: Private Equity and the AR15

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I bought an Olympic Arms with a carry handle back in '94. I put Trijicon nights sights on it (which I were unable to see anyway, oh well). Put a goose necked accessory on the handle to mound an Eotech without the sight begin 4 ft in the air over the gun. That brought it down to reasonable. It served till 2018 reasonable well for thousands of rounds when it started break things. Pins sheared, trigger group failed (suprise, fired two round at a time). I was moving and sold it to a friend who fixes such. Gave me my best match of just 3 points down for the whole 5 stage match.

If when, before my shooting days are over, Scotus does away with the ban nonsense (yeah, right), I'll buy another. Till then the nice Mini is the 223.

I've got:

American Gun: The True Story of the Ar-15
McWhirter, Cameron

on reserve waiting list from the library, supposed a good read on history, popularity, why the bans have little effect on crime, etc. Probably still is in the unusual and dangerous camp of gun definitions used for bans - we will see.

[HeavyDuty]

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

Not really BM’s fault - they were all potentially like that, especially with crap grade ammunition.

[Darth_Uno]

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!

Well I turned 18 in '99 - right smack in the middle of the ban. LGS had Bushmaster and Colt, and a dealer I always saw at the gun shows had RRA. I guess you could get 'em but I don't think I ever saw an Armalite around here.

[Robinson]

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?

The men whose thinking and writings contributed to the 2nd Amendment were smart enough to know that weapons technology wouldn't stagnate. I fully believe they would support private ownership of AR-15s for example, as they are organic weapons surely included within the category referred to as "every terrible implement of the soldier".

But it is interesting to wonder what they would have thought about nuclear arms and other WMDs. On one hand, artillery and gunships were sometimes from private owners. But nuclear weapons are capable of being nation enders. What would they have thought about that? I don't know.

[0ddl0t]

The men whose thinking and writings contributed to the 2nd Amendment were smart enough to know that weapons technology wouldn't stagnate. I fully believe they would support private ownership of AR-15s for example, as they are organic weapons surely included within the category referred to as "every terrible implement of the soldier".

But it is interesting to wonder what they would have thought about nuclear arms and other WMDs. On one hand, artillery and gunships were sometimes from private owners. But nuclear weapons are capable of being nation enders. What would they have thought about that? I don't know.

Since they never intended on maintaining a standing army, they would abhor the idea of a potential tyrannical government having exclusive control over WMDs. I suspect they would ban WMDs entirely, but that obviously has its own problems with foreign enemies having their own WMDs. Parhaps they would allow state militias to own them, but not the feds?

[FNFAN]

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?

You're confining your speculation to the current model, where 'EV's for everyone' exists. Once capability for refueling ICE vehicles is gone, they can focus on the very factual downsides regarding sustainability of EV's for all and point the great unwashed masses at public transportation, which bridges the push for controllable population centers. It's easy to imagine slogans about reducing the 35,000 motor vehicle deaths per year to a small fraction by allowing only essential personnel to have EV's. They're very free with the terminology of "essential personnel" as we've seen with prior events.

[Darth_Uno]

I've often said that if anti-gunners were *really* serious about saving lives, they'd push for mandatory breathalyzers in all vehicles. Since, as they are so fond of pointing out, driving is a privilege and not a right.

[ccmdfd]

I've often said that if anti-gunners were *really* serious about saving lives, they'd push for mandatory breathalyzers in all vehicles. Since, as they are so fond of pointing out, driving is a privilege and not a right.

Don't forget sleep scoring, how well rested is the driver as well as technology which automatically shuts off every smartphone in the vehicle completely. No apps, no games, not just no texting or Internet surfing. Oh, and while we're at it why don't we put a mandatory speed limit of 35 mph on every single vehicle out there.

[Joe in PNG]

I've often said that if anti-gunners were *really* serious about saving lives, they'd push for mandatory breathalyzers in all vehicles. Since, as they are so fond of pointing out, driving is a privilege and not a right.

To be fair, there is a push to mandate breathalyzers in all vehicles.

[ccmdfd]

To be fair, there is a push to mandate breathalyzers in all vehicles.

Interesting, was not aware of that.