Gun Control

You’d think the Democratic Party would learn. After getting shellacked at the ballot box in 2022 and 2024 and whiffing a highly consequential election by “nominating” the ultimate protected hire, Democratic Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) has picked up Don Quixote’s lance and gone for his latest tilt at the windmill…gun control.

ICYMI: Sen. Schiff and Colleagues Introduce Assault Weapons Ban of 2025 

So, first, let’s be completely transparent. I like guns. I like them quite a bit, both as a hobby and as an expression of American freedoms and as a functional, real-world tool. I admire the ingenuity, appreciate the history associated and respect them for what they are- a tool and an instrument of civil trust, autonomy, liberty and self-determination. I think that the right to own a firearm should be (relatively) unimpeded, that we as responsible adult American citizens should be allowed to carry them in public spaces for the purpose of self-defense and lawful recreation and use, and that when I choose to carry, I am responsible for that firearm in totality. That is a pretty reasonable stance, in my opinion. We live in a relatively safe society, but there are threats posed by criminals, the mentally ill, etc. And yes, I am fully aware that access to firearms amplifies these threats too, particularly “easy” access. I do think that there is space for some moderate common and sensible restrictions on firearms ownership, carry and use. However, that is explicitly not what the Democrats have a habit of implementing whenever they get their grubby mitts on the issue.

Let’s parse his proposal. Here’s the text of the bill from Schiff’s website.

First, from the top, this isn’t off to a good start. “To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.” Senators, you’re talking about limiting a literal Constitutional Amendment and one of the fundamental freedoms that separates Americans from those cucked subjects elsewhere in the world. What are these “other purposes”?
Moving down to Page 2, we immediately get a wall of textual definitions, targeting semi-automatic actions for pistols, shotguns, “assault weapons” (helpfully, apparently, regardless of caliber), and rifles. Apparently the simple trait of being “semi-automatic” is enough to get it listed here. For those readers unfamiliar with firearms, there are 3 primary action types, and some sub-types. I’ll list them below.
1) Manual, single-shot actions. These weapons would range from ancient muskets to something like a Trapdoor single-shot rifle. There is no magazine, no repeated fire, without literally manually reloading the entire weapon. That could be as complex and lengthy as reloading a musket

…or a single-shot cartridge weapon like a Springfield Model 1873 Trapdoor Rifle

These weapons typically launch a large-bore, heavy, absolutely devastating bullet at a moderate velocity that causes truly gruesome wounds; particularly if one starts discussing the Civil War-vintage “Minie Ball” ammunition. They are fun, but somewhat of a niche hobby in the 21st Century- high cost of ammunition, large size, and a palpable obsolescence limit the popularity and utility of these firearms. There are also modern single-shot rifles that use more modern calibers and fire off of break-actions, they are popular in restricted countries but still lack the modernity of even the 19th Century. Let me be completely honest here- the primary utility of these particular weapons in the 21st Century is for sharpshooting and marksmanship; dedicated users can do some utterly spectacular shooting with these. As a side note, the humble musket is quite possibly the most capable firearm in a truly resource-poor environment, in that it can be supplied with truly homemade ammunition to a much greater extent than any cartridge-firing weapon.

2) Manually-actioned firearms: The firearm carries a magazine on-board, with 1 or more bullets in reserve, requiring the shooter to cycle a mechanical linkage to clear the fired cartridge from the chamber and feed a fresh round of ammunition into the chamber. This might be a bolt, a lever, or a pump.

All three of these manual actions have derivatives. Some lever-action “cowboy” rifles have detachable magazines; others feed from tubular magazines. Same with the bolt-action hunting rifles and even the pump-action shotguns; and even if there’s no (Democrat-designated) “evil” detachable magazine, there’s quite a bit of potential capacity in even an internal magazine. For example, a .357 lever-action Rossi R92 rifle in some forms can fit something like 12 cartridges in its magazine tube, a mechanically-similar Marlin 336 lever-action “deer rifle” can fit six .30-30 Winchester rifle rounds in its tube and accurately place them out to around 400 meters with a bit of practice (farther if you learn some holdovers). Practice can allow someone to empty that magazine pretty rapidly; depending on the degree of training someone has, you can keep up pretty well with a semi-automatic or even fully-automatic firearm in terms of delivering aimed fire, at least until the magazines run dry.

Now, let’s get into another completely relevant question…what about a revolver?

Ready cartridges are stowed in the cylinder, the mechanical action of pulling the trigger cocks the hammer and cycles the cylinder into battery…a modern double-action revolver is effectively a repeating firearm right alongside a “semi-automatic assault pistol” for the first 5-6 rounds…

That last video actually pretty clearly shows the challenge faced by soldiers across the first half of the 20th Century…how do you keep up in a gunfight with someone with superior technology?

3) Semi-automatic weapons, which “automatically” harness the energy generated by the firing of a cartridge to cycle the action and load the next round from the magazine. Once again, these can have internal or external magazines, some detachable and some not, and can use recoil capture, gas capture, pistons, or even combinations thereof.

Yes, on balance, semi-automatic actions can mechanically be fired faster, and detachable magazines facilitate easier, faster reloading. There’s a reason the Garand was phased out after the Korean War and replaced with detachable magazines.

“Fully-automatic” is just semi-automatic with a different flavor of trigger sear/disconnector, basically, a fully-automatic firearm is self-loading from the magazine and will fire until the trigger is released (which serves to block the firing pin). In American terms, fully-automatic firearms are very heavily regulated, very costly and very rare due to the Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986, which closed the registry of civilian fully-automatic firearms to new weapons. After nearly forty years, they’ve become extreme collector items, and are functionally pretty rare.

So now, equipped with a general overview, let’s predicate that with the knowledge that the calibers of these weapons are completely irrelevant to the discussion of how “dangerous”, socially-tolerant or “assault weapon” a given firearm is; a .22 Long Rifle cartridge can absolutely be one-shot drop lethal and plenty of men have survived 8mm Mauser hits; a bullet needs to be respected as potentially deadly and respected as such. Same with magazines, actions, etc…there is enough variation and similarity in real terms that it is impossible to reach a defined set of traits or features that somehow effectively quantifies “danger”. Remember, every firearm design is a balance between efficiency, weight, mission profile, economy and ergonomics as applied to the technology and environment of the period; “assault weapon” is a very nuanced term.

Anyways, on to the Democrats. The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’
means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
‘‘(A) A semiautomatic rifle that—
‘‘(i) has the capacity to accept a detachable
ammunition feeding device; and
‘‘(ii) has any 1 of the following:
‘‘(I) A pistol grip.
‘‘(II) A forward grip.
‘‘(III) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or a stock that is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of the weapon.
‘‘(IV) A grenade launcher.
‘‘(V) A barrel shroud.
‘‘(VI) A threaded barrel.
‘‘(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed am9 munition feeding device with the capacity to accept
more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition. ‘‘(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is de15 signed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm but not convert the semi automatic firearm into a machinegun.
‘‘(D) A semiautomatic pistol that ‘‘(i) has an ammunition feeding device that
is not a fixed ammunition feeding device; and
‘‘(ii) has any 1 of the following:
‘‘(I) A threaded barrel.
‘‘(II) A second pistol grip.
‘‘(III) A barrel shroud.

‘‘(IV) The capacity to accept a detachable ammunition feeding device at
some location outside of the pistol grip.
‘‘(V) A semiautomatic version of an
automatic firearm.
‘‘(VI) A manufactured weight of 50
ounces or more when unloaded.
‘‘(VII) A buffer tube, stabilizing brace
or similar component that protrudes horizontally behind the pistol grip, and is designed or redesigned to allow or facilitate
a firearm to be fired from the shoulder.
‘‘(E) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed ammunition feeding device that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
‘‘(F) A semiautomatic shotgun that—
‘‘(i) has the capacity to accept a detachable
ammunition feeding device or a fixed ammuni19 tion feeding device that has the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; and
‘‘(ii) has any 1 of the following:
‘‘(I) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
‘‘(II) A pistol grip or bird’s head grip.
‘‘(III) A forward grip.

So, basically, the same drivel and tripe from the 1994 AWB. But with a few new twists (a “forward grip”),

or a “threaded barrel”, or a “telescoping stock” or a magazine over 10 rounds. Normal Democrat shit, in other words. Then they go and list a bunch of AR- and AK-pattern rifles, breaking them down by brand. Once again, this is normal Democrat fare- blue states often ban weapons by their completely-arbitrary traits, like their brand name or ergonomics, in the interests of “public safety”.

Then we’ve got more modifiers for “barrel shrouds” (do they mean heatguards/handguards?), the addendum saying that Lucas McCain’s lever-action is (currently) not an Assault Weapon, government and law enforcement “exemptions”, nuclear security guard exemptions, etc. It’s basically the Democrat authoritarian wet dream- rules for thee, but not for meee. Then there’s a list of exemptions (conspicuously including the functionally-an-assault-rifle Ruger Mini-series rifles), then there’s background checks and a little provision on the end that Byrne Grants for “public safety” can totally be used for “gun buyback” initiatives to help persuade the peasants to turn over their guns for $25 gift cards and warm feelings of pacific warmth. Once again, standard Democrat bullshit.

Here’s Schiff announcing it . He doesn’t get a lot of column inches, but his Democrat colleague and fellow Californian Alex Padilla is a lot more descriptive.

WATCH: Padilla, Schiff, Murphy, Blumenthal, McBath Reintroduce Assault Weapons Ban

Giving that a read, let’s look at this part:

“Thirty-one years ago, after the Stockton schoolyard shooting in California, Senator Feinstein successfully led bipartisan legislation to ban military-style assault weapons. Over the next ten years, and until the measure expired, the assault weapons ban was a vital tool in the struggle to reduce gun violence and mass shootings. It saved lives. Today, I’m honored to carry on the legacy of Dianne Feinstein, and work to ban these weapons that have led to the most terrible mass casualty events in our communities. The time to act on this life-saving legislation is now — not tomorrow, not next week, and not when the next tragedy strikes,” said Senator Schiff. 

“Assault weapons are designed for one thing: to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. These are weapons of war that have no place in our communities, and it’s long past time we treated them that way. A majority of Americans support an assault weapons ban, and it’s time for Republicans to get on board and pass this bill before more lives are lost,” said Senator Murphy. 

“Assault weapons have only one practical purpose – to slaughter human beings. These military-style combat weapons are designed to maximize death and destruction. No self-respecting hunter uses one. Assault weapons have brought bloodshed and carnage to our streets and our schools. Guns don’t respect state boundaries, which is why we need a national solution to restricting the ownership and use of the mass shooter’s weapon of choice,” said Senator Blumenthal. 

“Assault weapons are made to murder and maim. These weapons of war do not belong on our streets, in our classrooms, or in our spaces of worship,” said Representative McBath. ”Since the death of my son, I have dedicated my life to preventing more families from feeling the pain of losing a loved one to gun violence. No one should fear for their child’s safety when they head off to school or the mall. Banning assault weapons is a proven way to prevent horrific massacres from devastating our country. I thank Senator Schiff and my House colleagues for their support of this important bill.” 

People, y’all are missing the point. EVERY WEAPON IN HUMAN HISTORY STARTED AS A WEAPON OF WAR. Ancient Romans hunted boars with spears and arrows and javelins. Medieval peasants poached with bows and spears and knives. Then, they’d go to war literally with those same tools. Firearms are no different- hunting and war are quite literally intertwined. The colonists who settled the East fed and protected their communities with the same weapons they fought the Revolution with; for literally all of human history, military and civilian small arms have maintained relative parity. The only functional differences have been questions of culture, access-management and resources. When Democrats start spouting dumbfuckery like “weapons of war” as justifications for bans, that’s their weaseling their way into banning all weapons, or close to it. Which war? Which assault? Which technology? Remember, Smedley Butler won his first Medal of Honor with a five-shot wood-stocked pistol-gripless unthreaded 22″ bolt-action Springfield M1903 battle rifle and a Colt M1911 semi-automatic pistol carrying seven rounds; Alvin York earned his MoH five years later with an M1917 bolt-action rifle and another 1911; George Galloway and James D. Gardner earned their honors with a Springfield musket firing one round at a time, bayonets and gigantic balls. Were those “assault weapons”? I reckon to the Rebel officer Pvt. Gardner executed, it was pretty damned “assault”.

So, we can agree that the usual Democrat weasel-slippery doublespeak definitions are half-baked, inconclusive and impressive only in length and number of points missed (in that they seem to think that simply banning popular and common firearms from future sales will somehow reduce the incidences of violence). It’s here I mention that thankfully President Trump and the Republicans have no intention of committing political suicide by helping to advance this bill. But wait, Rocket- why don’t you care about the children or public safety? Are you a Republican? You monster! (And yes, I am a gun owner).

First, let’s talk about bans. Yes, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban did correspond with a decrease in overall crime, a decrease in gun crime, and a decrease in “mass shootings”, as defined by 3 or more people shot in a single encounter or in the vicinity thereof. Gun manufacturers and gun culture as a whole oriented more toward less-military appearances; gun owners of the time were predominantly older White men and had a higher percentage of veterans, and the gun makers of the time were more apt to produce modified versions of their weapons with decreased magazine capacities, weird ergonomics, and lacking “evil” features like threaded barrels and offensive grips. And yes, there were fewer mass shootings making it into the public consciousness…up until Columbine in 1998. So, what changed? Was it the guns? Or was it the cumulative affects of the War on Terror, the transition of media and entertainment to a constant blizzard, the rise of social media and the incredible niche-fication of how people interact, the rise of nihlistic social communities like “incels” and the human desire to be noticed, the economic insecurities of the 21st Century, or simply more exposure and coverage? Well, in Democrat land, apparently it’s the guns. Except that plenty of mass shootings and acts of violence occur in Blue states, and if one looks at something like the top 20 states where gun violence occurs per capita it looks a lot more like a simple population-distribution map rather than a horrible Republican conspiracy. Poverty, decreased access to economic opportunities, apathy to one’s community, low educational achievement, cultures that incentivize violence (looking at gangbangers, white trash, etc) and proximity to criminal enterprises seems to have a lot more to do with mass shootings, gun violence and gun problems than the hardware used. But let’s also be completely honest. No one gives a single shit about gangbanger crime in Chicago or the backwoods of Kentucky or the Texas hinterlands. Maybe a quarter-shit is given about home invaders, crimes targeting people, etc. Why? Because people broadly understand that most of us have the same stuff, not much money, and home invaders are probably coming to hurt us, not just take our stuff, because it’s way safer to burgle empty places and you don’t need guns and the risk of extra charges to do that. Even Democrats understand that it’s a political loser to make a habit of prosecuting people who are defending their families from aggressive attackers, albeit after they stripped his CCW permit . Note what happened in the Ricci case- a man uses his lawful, permitted CCW in a clear case of self-defense against two armed attackers, and although he wasn’t arrested and prosecuted for the “crime” of defending himself (as he would have been in the Cucked Countries like the UK, Canada, Australia, etc), he was still disarmed, left vulnerable to the same hooligans who had attacked him before that had just escaped, and at a minimum forced to justify why he needed the 2nd Amendment again. What the fuck, right? If that had been in Texas, I’d have a hard time seeing how he wouldn’t get a goddamned parade and probably some extra ammo gifted to him. Anyways, I digress. Democrats, and pretty much all of us, really care about mass shootings.

Columbine. Aurora. Uvalde. Las Vegas. Parkland. Santa Fe. Dallas. Sutherland Springs. UT-Austin. Virginia Tech. Nashville. Oslo, Norway. Paris, France. Ontario, Canada. Too many more to list. There’s been a bunch. Waaaayyyy tooo many. Some of them “small”, with only single-digit victim counts. Others were absurdly gigantic, like Las Vegas, where nearly a thousand people were killed or wounded directly allegedly by one deranged man and thousands more traumatized for life. And yes, there is a strong case to be made that easy access to firearms enabled those horrors, and yes, I readily concede that the ready availability of ergonomically-friendly, intuitive, rapid-fire-optimized weapons that were easy to buy made these tragedies far worse than they may have been with less effective weapons. But wait…some of those weren’t performed with “assault weapons”. UT-Austin was perpetrated with a set of weapons that wouldn’t meet any assault criteria here. Oslo was perpetrated with a Democrat-immunized Mini-14. Virginia Tech was perpetrated with a Glock semi-automatic pistol. In all of these cases, a law or even restrictions on who could own what would have made no difference in what is functionally available. The Nashville trans shooter’s weapons weren’t assault weapons; somehow I doubt someone willing to execute children is going to be thwarted by laws arbitrarily restricting magazine capacity- it’s pretty easy to just carry more magazines. The same body count could likely have been generated by a humble lever-action .22LR or a seven-shot 1911. Of note, however, and a common thread, is that shitloads of rounds were fired. 152 in Nashville. Thousands in Las Vegas. Hundreds at Columbine and Sutherland Springs, etc. So, yes. I could see some case to be made that limiting the capacity of magazines could interrupt a shooting spree a little more. But how could that be quantified, and if given this reasonable inch, how can we Americans trust the Democrats not to take miles with nonsensical regulations and Kafkaesque processes to exercise our lawful rights (as they have in California, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, etc…or on an international basis, look to the UK and Canada and Australia, where the people have lost their rights to self-defense entirely). Many of my handguns fit 15-round service magazines. Is that too many? What about the six rounds of my revolver? Is that too many? See where I’m coming from? One man’s “too many” and “it’s about preventing mass shootings by evil people” might be reasonable, but it runs face-first into reality, because how is “too many” quantified, who by, and to what standard? Democrats, you have a problem with credibility. These things happen, yes, but your standard actions are more restrictions. More delays. More limits. Restrictions that don’t work. And Americans hear “surrender” every time Democrats insist Americans disarm. I don’t have a definitive solution for all mass shootings; just ideas like “less of a gun culture emphasis on money and tacticool” and big ideas like “a lot less social media and a lot more engagement with our fellow people”, etc. But I’m rambling. Let’s get back on track.

Why does this message make Democrats into the Human Centipede? BECAUSE IT RUNS HEADLONG INTO THE REAL, PUBLIC, UNDERSTOOD AND IMPLIED AND BLATANT INTENT BEHIND THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND AMERICAN GUN CULTURE AND AMERICAN FREEDOM AS A WHOLE. America is a special place, Democrats. A place we fought for to create, to hold together, to make safe for our way of life, and that we turned around and fought together to save the world from unspeakable evils and crushing government oppression and religious zealotry. It’s an idea literally forged with a rifle and a Minuteman and a fucking dream of liberty and independence. When Democrats come up with asinine bullshit like “modern firearms are SCARY and DANGEROUS so no one should have them!” that somehow manages to imply that every GWOT veteran who wants an M4-configured carbine in case of emergency and for nostalgia and that every single woman who wants a Glock is a threat to the public. It is insulting in the extreme, and it doesn’t get a single vote that the Democrats actually need to win elections. Instead, it alienates millions of us. Let’s ponder why so many veterans vote Republican or don’t vote at all, despite our awareness of just how terrible the GOP is…it’s at least partially because we recognize that the Democrat party line as it currently exists and their incremental efforts to install wholesale subjugation upon the American people is anathematic to the Constitution and the nature of the country, potentially to an even greater extent than GOP fascism-in-waiting.

So, why does this matter now? It’s pretty obvious that the bill ain’t going anywhere, MAGA and the GOP won’t give an inch because they know it’s political suicide for them to even begin to compromise on anything and I do think that most of the MAGA caucus is at least somewhat ideologically-opposed to installing Democrat bullshit on their constituents. But it’s all performative theatre- the Dems know it won’t pass, and they’re trying to score brownie points with their pearl-clutching base for dollars and guaranteed votes. But that pandering alienates a lot of us independents, who matter more for votes, and who see guns for what they are- tools to help us protect ourselves, our families and our communities. And in an era punctuated by unchecked urban crime, drugs, terror, and the not-quite-intangible threat of civil unrest fueled by the single least qualified individual to ever hold the office of President of the United States and his spineless party of lackeys, Quislings and fuckboys and the pearl-clutching reality-denying ineffective nitwit cowards who routinely ignore their duties and obligations to the Constitution and the people of the United States…do we really want to be disarming? Especially when many of us are in those “targeted” minority groups that are routinely and blatantly threatened by those politicians in power and their social movements that got them there…kinda seems shortsighted to rid ourselves of the deterrents that keep society civil.

Remember, this country happened because brave people took up arms against an oppressive tyrannical government. It is incumbent upon us to maintain that capability and protect it from those who would seek to remove it.