Regulation Of AR-15 Would Be Effective Concession For Gun Owners
BY Herschel Smith
6 years, 5 months ago
So says Major JD Swinney of the US Army:
I am a gun owner. I grew up hunting and target shooting and am now an officer in the U.S. Army. I am comfortable with responsible gun ownership.
But I am also a father, and my heart aches at the sight of white crosses memorializing dead children.
Gun owners have a responsibility to help develop and support policies that manage access to guns not only in their own homes but in society as well, because to talk of the right to bear arms without advocating for the responsible exercise of those rights is irresponsible citizenship indeed. A logical place to start this conversation of responsible rights is with the AR-15 rifle.
Let’s be honest: the AR-15 is only optimal as a military weapon. The weapon is rugged, holds a lot of ammunition and is easy to maintain in working condition. War is a unique environment that requires a weapon with those characteristics, but do private citizens ever find themselves in such an environment?
Without some modification, an AR-15 is not especially accurate. It can be used for hunting, but it is not especially adapted for that purpose. The 5.56 mm, by far the most common round for the AR-15, isn’t especially great for home defense, either; nearly two decades of war in Iraq and Afghanistan suggests there are better calibers for stopping assailants.
The remaining characteristic of the AR-15 is magazine capacity — those available can hold from five to 100 or more rounds. However most defensive shooting situations, where private citizens discharge a firearm, an average of four or fewer rounds fired. Recent history shows the only situations where the AR-15 ammunition capacity is put to use are war, police standoffs and mass shootings.
So why would the gun-owning community not favor place stricter controls on the sale and possession of the AR-15 and other high capacity semi-automatic rifles? Sadly, it is because the AR-15 has become a fetish object within the gun owning community. It is valued more as a symbol of the private citizen’s right to bear arms and less because of its usefulness as a tool.
The fetishizing of the AR-15 derives from the fact that they were once banned under Title XI, the “Assault Weapons Ban,” of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The 1994 “ban” was not renewed in 2004, and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives data suggest that in the decade following the ban, the number of AR-15s manufactured in America rose from 100,000 to more than 1 million each year. The end of the assault weapons ban symbolized a reclaimed right, and AR-15 ownership came to embody this reclaimed right.
Groups such as the NRA make a case that the AR-15 is used mostly in legal ways by responsible gun owners. Referring to the AR-15 as a “modern sporting rifle,” they rebrand the gun in ways that aren’t military-related. And most AR-15s are used in legal ways.
But one should remember that the idea of using the AR-15 for hunting or competition shooting became popular after the end of the assault weapons ban, once greater numbers of people owned AR-15s, not before. The narrative that the AR-15 is an optimal tool for anything beyond combat is a fabrication of the gun industry.
This returns us to the idea that rights must come with responsibility. Perhaps gun owners should focus on the “well-regulated” clause within the Second Amendment as much as they focus on “shall not be infringed.” More gun owners should support common sense regulation of guns; to do so would be a display of the responsible exercise of rights. Because the AR-15 is valued for its symbolism more than its usefulness, it is uniquely suited for stricter regulation.
Finally, if gun owners do not give a little, they will have to give a lot when this current generation, which has grown up in the midst of mass violence, gains the power of the ballot.
Perhaps meaningful legislation is unlikely in the short term, but the only thing worse than incremental change is no change at all. If we do not come together on this, sadly, I fear there are more white crosses in our children’s future.
Yea, the 5.56mm is just an awful round as we’ve learned. That’s why the US Army and Marine Corps have used it for the last half century. So let’s follow his argument closely.
The round is absolutely horrible. Just terrible. Good for nothing. There are better rounds available. The AR-15 is valued for its symbol rather than its usefulness. Now to his next main argument.
It’s not optimal for anything but combat. Got that? It’s useless. But it’s valuable for combat. Thus it’s “uniquely suited for stricter regulation.”
Unsaid: Every gun design on earth has been used for combat. Shotguns were used by the US Marines in Now Zad, Afghanistan for room clearing operations. The Marine Corps used Winchester Model 70s (bolt action) for sniping in The first Iraq war. The Army (and now the Marine Corps) uses .300 Win Mag for sniping, and these are all standard, classic hunting rounds.
So the objection that an implement is used for war is irrelevant and strange, and he knows it. This is rhetorical tactic, but a very bad one.
There are smatterings of rhetorical punches like this: Recent history shows the only situations where the AR-15 ammunition capacity is put to use are war, police standoffs and mass shootings. Of course, this is false and he knows it. He’s appealing to the ignorant among his readers. He pretends to argue to gun owners, but in reality he’s appealing to ignoramuses.
Finally, take note that he is third-year graduate student in history at Duke University, a major in the U.S. Army, and a fellow with the U.S. Army’s Advanced Strategic Planning and Policy Program. That’s right, he has taken an oath to which he never intended to be faithful.
He is heavily invested in the notion that armed men – whether the Army or local police – should be engaging in stability operations, and men and women shouldn’t have what they consider the best weaponry to effect self defense. In other words, if you are an average men or woman, he hates you. He cares not one whit for your life or wellbeing.
When a commentary begins with “I am a gun owner. I grew up hunting and target shooting,” ignore it. There’s always a “but” coming very soon. Gun owners and patriots don’t feel the need to burnish their credentials. Especially ignore it if it continues with this: ” … and am now an officer in the U.S. Army. I am comfortable with responsible gun ownership.”
He’s burnishing his creds again, and then he’s lying. No, he’s not comfortable with responsible gun ownership. The rest of his commentary proves that he’s lying. JD Swinney is in the same camp as the rest of the flag and staff officers who want to destroy the constitution. They’re unfaithful liars, one and all. Turn your back on such men. In better times they would be hanged by the neck until dead for treason.
On June 18, 2018 at 9:40 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
Well, time to add “Major JD Swinney” to the long-and-growing list of military officers who swore an oath they did not really mean – to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution and the republic for which it stands.
It is sad to read such statements coming from a field-grade officer, but not all that surprisingly, given that the fanatically anti-gun Obama regime had eight long years in which to socially-engineer the armed forces into greater compliance with its ideology.
Eight years in which to force their opposition within the ranks into early retirement, involuntary separation, or into dead-end posts without a future. Eight years in which to get fellow Cultural Marxists appointed to the service academies, promoted to flag/general rank, and into the most-prestigious posts. Eight years to fill the pipeline with young converts to their way of thinking.
The Cultural Marxists have been gunning for the armed forces for a long time, no pun intended, because it has long-been one of the few remaining bulwarks of traditional America which remained unconquered by them. By the time Obama left Washington, the citadel had fallen and the Left had planted its flag.
Women in the special forces, gay weddings, breast implants funded by the military (i.e., by the taxpayer), and male Army ROTC cadets forced to wear red high heels in support of women. And all of the rest of the P.C. nonsense which is so damaging to our military readiness, and which is inexorably destroying the institution of the armed forces themselves.
It isn’t that great of a surprise that anti-gun personnel now flourish within the ranks of mid-grade and senior military officers. Guys like Swinney wouldn’t get their tickets punched unless they went all-in with the new program. “Up or out” is still official policy within the U.S. armed forces. Get with the program or you are history.
About five years ago, when Obama and company were still in power, a rumor started circulating – a rumor which was alleged to have originated with a loyal-but-nameless operator, service branch unknown, in the special operations community. Prospective officer appointees – including senior officers – were being asked as a condition of their appointment whether they would follow an order to fire upon their fellow Americans, if such an order was to be given.
Military officers recommending that the populace be disarmed; stories that the police have no obligation to protect you; officers being questioned as to their willingness to fire upon their own countrymen… scores of hostile Muslims being imported, en mass, into this country. Social unrest on college campuses and in our city streets.
One wishes it wasn’t so, but it is time to batten down the hatches, because there’s a storm coming.
On June 18, 2018 at 11:20 pm, June J said:
I no longer assume military officers are anything more than progressive socialists waiting for the order to unleash their troops on deplorables. That there is an endless stream willing to openly declare their belief in taking away guns from citizens is evidence at how far down Obama’s regime took our country.
On June 19, 2018 at 12:29 am, Smaj said:
The officer class, by and large, is firmly on the left side of the political spectrum. Not just the Clapper/Clark/Mullen types but deep down in the commissioned ranks. Some of the political things I’ve heard field grade officers say are deeply troubling.
If things go sideways, most will not honor their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
On June 19, 2018 at 12:30 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
@ June J
The scuttlebutt I’ve heard – for what it is worth – is that a large portion of the flag/general officer ranks are up-for-grabs, as well as a significant portion of the field grades and down into some of the company grade officers and senior NCOs. However, the vast majority of the enlisted ranks are still on the side of traditional America.
Even the EMs aren’t a sure thing. The biggest and most-powerful drug and other gangs routinely send their personnel into the military to get access to training and whatever else they can steal or make use of. The Muslim Brotherhood has penetrated the ranks as well, and they have people inside – right up into JSOC. And so on.
Take this with a grain of salt, as I don’t know how accurate my data are now as opposed to a few years ago. Maybe someone else can help us out with this, supply us with some useful info.
On June 19, 2018 at 1:44 am, DAN III said:
I have long despised the officer corps of the U.S. Army, especially the political hacks of flag officer rank.
My recollection of commissioned officers is, sadly, they put themselves outside the Army standard. That is, what is good (by regulation) for the enlisted does not apply to the commissioned ranks (or senior E8/E9 NCOs). Take for example the Army Physical Fitness Test.
When it came time for the APFT commissioned officers and E-8s and E-9s were nowhere to be found. Yet, somehow, their DA 705 would find it’s way to my Operations shack. Usually within 72 hours of the APFT and delivered by a lackey O-4.
The “professional”, modern, volunteer Army is filled with straphangers who couldn’t lead ants to a picnic. The bulk of the officer corps comes from the college ROTC programs. That alone should warn an NCO that chances are, the commissioned officer(s) before him are products of the liberal mentality of those educated in the college environment.
The essay posted by the blog author is accurate. My years of experience has hardened my heart to most things US military, especially the commissioned officer ranks. Company grade officers in most cases had yet to be totally infected with the “US vs THEM” mentality of O-4s and above. For them the enlisted men have ALWAYS occupied Hillary Clinton’s categorizing traditional Americans as “”deplorables”.
Of course there will always be exceptions, but my experiences have been primarily negative with commissioned officers. If the shoe fits, wear it !
In the meantime I give you the below essay by former Marine officer Tom Baugh. Baugh being that exception to the commissioned officer mentality:
https://starvingthemonkeys.com/articles/Colonels.html
On June 19, 2018 at 6:47 am, ragman said:
The USAF Academy is no better. The Commandant of Cadets is an openly bull dyke lesbian. West Point is allowing the outrage of “gay weddings”. Junior Navy officers can’t perform the most basic of operational and navigation tasks. NCOs make the military work, we all know that. But the orders and policies come from the officers and the higher up the ranks the chances are that said officers are like this idiot in the post above. And I’m supposed to believe that our liberal pussified military will defeat Russian and Chinese “enemies”? Of course there are exceptions but they seem to be few and far between in ’18. God help us!
On June 19, 2018 at 8:04 am, SGT.BAG said:
There were a handful of officers i would have followed to hell and a handful i would have strangled with my bare hands. That was in 1998. Can’t even fathom it now.
There will be no cocessions. Why, BFYTW.
Your move.
On June 19, 2018 at 9:39 am, Chris Mallory said:
Yep, today’s Army officers are a lot different than in day’s past. You know men like Patton, Eisenhower, and MacArthur. Men who used infantry, cavalry, tanks, and poison gas against American citizens trying to get relief from their government. Wait, maybe today’s officers aren’t all that different.
On June 19, 2018 at 9:48 am, Tim said:
The Major is certainly entitled to his opinion, however wrong it is. As a member of our armed services I have had the luxury of base housing and my family being guarded byarmed DoD & AF Security Forces personnel. However, 99% of the population has to rely on either 9-1-1 or their own wits when trouble comes knocking uninvited. The saying “seconds count when the police are only minutes away” means exactly what it says (exactly). And AR in the hands of a trained individual levels the odds against thugs. I believe the Major has an eye on politics after his next OPR doesn’t get him his silver oak leaf, and he needs to work on his “street cred”. When the push for firearms registration comes to shove, I am sure the good Major will be leading from the front of the confiscation teams, right “sir”?
On June 19, 2018 at 10:05 am, Heywood said:
Good for me, but not for thee! Seems to be a theme for these “Pro 2A, gun owners” who just want “common sense gun laws.”
Not an inch.
On June 19, 2018 at 11:45 am, Hiram said:
”Recent history shows the only situations where the AR-15 ammunition capacity is put to use are war, police standoffs and mass shootings.”
Okay, so…? What’s your point jerk? Here’s MY point: I don’t much care what your opinion is on any firearm I buy and/or use NOR is it any of your business. Why don’t you go have a pedicure or something? I hear bright pinko is the “in” color this year.
“Perhaps gun owners should focus on the “well-regulated” clause within the Second Amendment as much as they focus on “shall not be infringed.” ”
Per common use at the time, “well-regulated” meant “well supplied”.
Perhaps Major Weeny ought to focus on proper use of the English language. While he’s at it, it may behoove him to bone up a bit on history too. He could start with the years preceding the American Revolution, take a stroll through WWII and maybe visit Turkey, Stalin’s USSR and Mao’s China for starters with a strong emphasis on what “common sense gun control” did for their citizens. Then again, I’m sure he well knows and salivates over the prospect of the same things happening here.
Pardon my vernacular but he and his kind can STFU.
On June 19, 2018 at 12:26 pm, Bram said:
“Gun owners have a responsibility…”
At least time I took the oath, Soldiers have a responsibility to protect and uphold the Constitution.
“Finally, if gun owners do not give a little…”
Wow – we are already at a (poorly) negotiated place. We have given way too much. If you want to open negotiations, I’ll open with a proposal to honor the actual words of the Constitution.
On June 19, 2018 at 1:54 pm, Gryphon said:
Major J.D. Swinney, Traitor to the Republic. Another in the long list of those in the Standing Army who Refuse to recognize the Inalienable Rights of the People.
Chris Mallory is Correct, the Standing Army has a History of Acting Violently against the People when Ordered.
Any number of the Nations’ Founders are On Record as calling a Standing Army a Threat to the Republic, and the “Well Regulated Militia” was supposed to be Armed and Trained Equal to any Standing Army, for the Explicit Purpose of ‘Putting Down’ a government gone Rogue.
Swinney and the rest of the Quislings still don’t Realize that when they are sent on ‘Counterinsurgency Missions’ in the USSA, their Homes and Families are Accessible, unlike when they are Fighting the Patriots in Foreign Nations the USSA tries to Destroy.
Also, I doubt that He understands the Tactic of Removing Officers First, whenever Possible, as it Degrades Unit Effectiveness.
On June 19, 2018 at 5:34 pm, Longbow said:
“…I grew up hunting and target shooting…”
I have a LEGITIMATE reason to own MY guns. You see, MY guns are for entertainment.
I’m not like those OTHER people who own guns just because they want to be “armed”. I’m a “responsible” gun owner.
Why, I have no problem at all with begging Daddy for permission and paying Daddy for my permission slip, so that I can entertain myself.
See how compliant and submissive I am?
I’m a Good Boy!
On June 19, 2018 at 6:23 pm, 15Fixer said:
By this reasoning, no one should need a Ferrari, a Lamborghini, or a Corvette either since speed limits don’t let you run the cars to their full potential. All these kinds of people miss the most basic, fundamental principal of all, the “Freedom of Choice.” It doesn’t matter WHAT it is, we as sentient human beings have the God-given Right of Choice!!!
By the way.. if 5.56 is such crappy ammunition, shouldn’t it have been done away with, Decades ago??? Major Shithead, his name should be.
On June 19, 2018 at 6:51 pm, June J said:
@Chris Mallory
Exactly. Too bad that little piece of American history isn’t taught and talked about more.
On June 19, 2018 at 10:28 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
@ Gryphon
Re: “Swinney and the rest of the Quislings still don’t Realize that when they are sent on ‘Counterinsurgency Missions’ in the USSA, their Homes and Families are Accessible, unlike when they are Fighting the Patriots in Foreign Nations the USSA tries to Destroy.”
In 2012, roughly halfway through the Obama regime’s eight years in power, the “Small Wars Journal” ran an article by coauthors Colonel Kevin Benson, Ph.D. (USA, ret.) and University of Kansas Associate Professor of History Jennifer Weber entitled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A Vision of the Future,” in which the authors gamed out different scenarios under which the U.S. Army might be called upon to wage counter-insurgency warfare on U.S. soil.
If not for the sharp eyes of some patriots, this littler-noticed event might have passed unremarked upon, but now that it is in the open – the article, its subject and its authors suggest some conclusions which may be drawn.
First, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 – long-established as legal precedent governing when, where and how U.S. armed forces may be used – has not been gutted and rendered toothless. Under the Act, the use of the regular military of the United States to enforce domestic policy was severely circumscribed, if not outright prohibited.
The proof of that pudding may be seen in the fact that the U.S. Army is now war-gaming domestic counter-guerrilla and counter-insurgency operations on U.S. soil, as evidenced by the article.
Second, the article tells much about whom the deep-state sees as its enemies, i.e., anyone opposed to its policies on immigration, diversity, multiculturalism, etc. and/or anyone in favor of traditional America and its values.
Consider the following passage from the article: “…A high-profile and vocal minority has directed the public’s fear and frustration at nonwhites and immigrants. After almost ten years of race-baiting and immigrant-bashing by right-wing demagogues, nearly one in five Americans reports being vehemently opposed to immigration, legal or illegal, and even U.S.-born nonwhites have become occasional targets for mobs of angry whites. In May 2016 an extremist militia motivated by the goals of the “tea party” movement takes over the government of Darlington, South Carolina…”
“Right-wing demagogues,” “extremist militia,” “tea party movement,” “race-baiting,” “immigrant-bashing,” are just some of the descriptions of the “enemy” to be found in this study. The article later goes on to link these “extremists” with the KKK.
In other words, any America who is opposed to immigration, for any reason, is an extremist, an immigrant-basher, a militia member, a tea-party supporter, a member of the KKK and a racist.
Support the status quo – or these are the labels they will affix to you. These are the crimes, real or not, of which you will be accused.
Third, there are plenty of serving or recently-retired military personnel who are willing to forsake their oaths to the U.S. Constitution and make war upon their own countrymen and women – or at least consider the prospect of doing so.
Fourth, the academy has fallen to the Cultural Marxists, as Webber amply demonstrates. No surprise there. The good professor seems to know where her bread is buttered.
In conclusion, then, talk of U.S. armed forces operating on American soil, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, isn’t merely conjecture – but a very real possibility – one which has been discussed out in the open by the deep-state and its members. As a nation, we’ve been building toward this for a long time – Hurricane Katrina being just one example of many in recent history.
On June 20, 2018 at 4:33 am, DAN III said:
Georgiaboy61,
It is my understanding Posse Comitatus never did and does not now preclude fUSA naval forces, i.e., USMC, from domestics ops. Secondly, the Act was created in 1878 with the intent to prevent using federal troops to enforce state laws. The Act does not inhibit fUSA .mil from domestic ops to enforce FEDERAL diktats.(
On June 20, 2018 at 11:25 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
@ Dan III
Re: “It is my understanding Posse Comitatus never did and does not now preclude fUSA naval forces, i.e., USMC, from domestics ops.”
Copy that. The Navy and Marine Corps (the Corps was then part of and directly-subordinate to the UNS) were purposefully-exempted from the act, as it was understood that we are a maritime nation, with a long coastline to defend.
My understanding, for what it is worth, is that the Posse Comitatus Act was written specifically with regards to the U.S. Army, perhaps in reference to the Founding Fathers’ fears of large, standing armies.
Re: “The Act does not inhibit fUSA .mil from domestic ops to enforce FEDERAL diktats.”
Right, which I would have concluded myself had I thought it through more-carefully, i.e., Ike sending in the 101st A/B to enforce Brown versus the Board of Education in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957.
Thanks for the clarification.
On June 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm, JFP said:
“Referring to the AR-15 as a “modern sporting rifle,” they rebrand the gun in ways that aren’t military-related.”
Word games are fun Major. Say, why does the police and gun industry now call assault weapons and semi-auto ar-15 MSR’s “patrol rifles” these days? Why has the term PDW or Personal Defense Weapon taken the place of sub-machine gun?
On June 23, 2018 at 6:01 pm, Jaque said:
Everyone of his points against the civilian ownership of the AR are easily proven wrong. I wonder what his political biases are. He clearly has no understanding of the second amendment. He misunderstands “regulated”
I suspect he has a fetish for Obama and his pals. But it this point I find most bizarre.
“The fetishizing of the AR-15 derives from the fact that they were once banned under Title XI, the Assault Weapons Ban,”
I have never fetishized for anything. All my so called assault weapons I have owned long before the ban. And I will never surrender them.
On June 24, 2018 at 7:33 am, Talktome said:
Major Swinney is a traitor. He’s also ill informed about the 2nd amendment. I agree that “well regulated” should be emphasized, but I know what well regulated” means – Maj. Swinney doesn’t have a clue. He’s simply another member of the military with a slave mentality. Isn’t it interesting that those who work for the government have a problem with citizens who believe in liberty?
On June 24, 2018 at 5:55 pm, Annoyed Max said:
My guns were lost at sea.
If I have to to dive for them one day to demonstrate them for Swiney, Weber, Bunsen et al., well – that’s what deep breathing training is for.