BY Herschel Smith
7 years ago
Here is a broad ranging discussion thread where the commenters throw down with each other, referencing an AR-15 discussion thread where Mark LaRue apparently hinted at the willingness to accept gun control. Some commenters at reddit think not, but here is what he apparently said.
“Like I said, if I come up with a way to use a waterhose to shoot up all your ammo faster, does that mean waterhoses are protected by the second amendment?”
He also apparently said this in support of the NRA. Now, I have to admit that the comment makes no sense and seems to me to be nonsensical. It could have been clear and made sense if it just included a typographical error, and should have read … “does that mean waterhoses aren’t protected by the second amendment?” It would make sense because it would be using a superlative to make a point, or arguing a fortiori, from the lesser to the greater [why stop with bump stocks, ban waterhoses too], or even reduction ad absurdum.
But what he may be doing is lampooning gun owners’ reflexive tendency, as he sees it, to defend anything under the rubric of the second amendment. In fact, I think this is close to the truth. Mark LaRue goes on to release a statement correcting himself, but it may be too little, too late. He also uses obscenity against a member of the AR-15 forum later on in the discussion thread.
What is the matter with these guys? Seriously, what’s wrong with their thinking? Why not say nothing at all, and do your best to serve the gun community with high quality products for as cheaply as you can sell them?
Well, I may be in the market for a high end AR-15 first quarter of next year. I think LaRue Tactical is off my short list.
