Like many pundits, Michael McFaul took a quick break this past week from his usual area of “expertise.” Instead of pontificating 24/7 about the need to funnel massive amounts of uncontrolled arms into Ukraine, he adroitly pivoted to pontificating about the need to more stringently control arms in the US.
Thank you for this. I'm a target shooter myself and have passing familiarity with rifle models and differences between civilian and military models, and your arguments that the liberals are blatantly self contradicting is convincing to me. But w.r.t. convincing anyone in the liberal commentariat, I suspect you'd have just as much success presenting your arguments to a lamppost. They are not interested in argument or reason.
If It is not self-contradicting to accept that Ukrainian soldiers should have fully automatic rifles but I should not, why is it self-contradicting to argue that they should have semi-automatic rifles but I should not?
"High-powered rifles" Is there any particular reason people think calling a varmit/intermediate cartridge "high-powered" makes them sound smart? Also, while we are on the subject, weren't these the same people who said guerillas with rifles would never make a difference in a modern war right after we left Afghanistan after losing to guerillas with rifles?
Not sure if you're ridiculing my own use of the term "high-powered," but I was really only importing the term to echo the framing commonly used by people who call for gun control.
I was referring to the idiots who use the term without knowing what the hell they are talking about and in doing so prove it. It is hard to tell from the way your article is structured that you are merely importing the term. However, I find you take technical terms and background research seriously enough to believe you had not to fallen into that trap.
Mr McFaul's policy is quite consistent. He is the authority, he will decide if/when you need "assault" weapons. In the case of the US, he has decreed they are NOT needed, until he decides they are. It's fluid dynamics. In the Ukraine, he has decided that yes, AR15s are acceptable, until he decrees they are not. Now do you get it? He is a rare breed of elite who decrees if/what/when/where/why to the rabble.
I'm nostalgic for the days when Michael Moore didn't have TDS.
Anyway, as a liberal, I can solve the disconnect quite easily. A certain kind of leftist or Democrat (but not liberal) has convinced him/herself Ukraine's "democratic" trustworthy government is fighting for its life against the untrustworthy "undemocratic" government of Putin's Russia. But in our country, our government is both "democratic" and "trustworthy" and its only adversaries are outside the country, which the military can defend with its guns, or "domestic terrorists" inside this country, which our police and intelligence agencies, if given enough power, can protect us all from and the circulation of guns here actually endangers both the populace and the trustworthy, definitely democratic government.
Of course, a real liberal, a libertarian, or a conservative can see the immediate flaw in that argument. We're making an awful lot of assumptions about how trustworthy and democratic both the Ukrainian and the US governments are. So this liberal is fully in favor of arming the US populace. Hand out cannons as far as I'm concerned.
After the events of the last few years I have will NEVER support any “gun control” of any sort. We are on our own and must be ready to defend ourselves.
Good points. FYI, the number of "mass shootings" in the US involving AR-15s and AR-15 clones are few and far between. There have been exactly TWO school shootings with AR-15s since Sandy Hook and Uvalde is only the second involving elementary students. There have been four mass school shootings since and including Sandy Hook. You mention Charles Whitman. Whitman was found to have an astrocytoma brain tumor when he was autopsied. Although the report of the shooting discounted it as a factor, I'd like to mention that my late son had the EXACT SAME tumor. He liked guns and had a M-1 carbine. He called me up one night and said he was going to come to Texas and kill me with it because he blamed me for the issues he was having - headaches, etc. He had an MRI shortly afterwards and the tumor was discovered. Unfortunately, it was inoperable. He also had a major heart condition - reversed arteries. He died in his sleep one night a year or so later.
I must confess that other than for resistance of government, I don't know why anyone would want an AR-15. I qualified with and carried an M-16 for years. I'd much rather have a Winchester Model 70.
Lightweight, very accurate, modular, customizable, low recoil, easy to get parts and ammo for, the ability to switch out upper and lower receivers, and modern ones are very reliable are why it is so popular. I am rather indifferent to the 5.56 and I live in a rural area, so the LR-308 appeals to me more.
The left's ability to compartmentalize is impressive. The velocity with which they went from "YOUR BODY MY CHOICE" (vaccines) to "MY BODY MY CHOICE" (abortion) made my head spin.
I am an AR15 owner, and enjoy this rifle at the range . As on Q, the Democrats are screaming about ARs again, but really, we all know they don’t give a flying fuck about the “children”..... they want these rifles.
The logical fallacies presented here are so characteristic of the dystopian consciousness we endure daily it would be great to continue to develop parallel lines of thought. There is a shape to this rabbit hole. It requires thinking upside down and backwards to anything presented by these illogical psychotic “liberals”. Ask what their actual goals are and we will easily identify them. Far easier now than it was two years ago.
I think the short answer is that the oligarchs want what benefits them whether or not it's in the public's interest, and the apparatchiks will cheer for that for some reason.
I don’t too much care about any arguments for gun control. “Shall not be infringed” is quite clear. And yes, Joe Biden, you COULD buy a cannon back in the times of the founding fathers.
Shall not be infringed. If you don’t like that there are at least 150 other countries you can move to and not be around civilians with guns.
Just FYI my debit card would not authorize my purchase to subscribe to your substack. It was weird. Card works fine for all other purchases, just not this. Anyway I used a different card and it worked, but just wanted to let you know in case it is some strange form of financial censorship. Love your shit, btw.
Thank you for this. I'm a target shooter myself and have passing familiarity with rifle models and differences between civilian and military models, and your arguments that the liberals are blatantly self contradicting is convincing to me. But w.r.t. convincing anyone in the liberal commentariat, I suspect you'd have just as much success presenting your arguments to a lamppost. They are not interested in argument or reason.
If It is not self-contradicting to accept that Ukrainian soldiers should have fully automatic rifles but I should not, why is it self-contradicting to argue that they should have semi-automatic rifles but I should not?
"High-powered rifles" Is there any particular reason people think calling a varmit/intermediate cartridge "high-powered" makes them sound smart? Also, while we are on the subject, weren't these the same people who said guerillas with rifles would never make a difference in a modern war right after we left Afghanistan after losing to guerillas with rifles?
Not sure if you're ridiculing my own use of the term "high-powered," but I was really only importing the term to echo the framing commonly used by people who call for gun control.
I was referring to the idiots who use the term without knowing what the hell they are talking about and in doing so prove it. It is hard to tell from the way your article is structured that you are merely importing the term. However, I find you take technical terms and background research seriously enough to believe you had not to fallen into that trap.
Guerillas in many cases, with rusty WW1 era bolt-action Enfields.
Mr McFaul's policy is quite consistent. He is the authority, he will decide if/when you need "assault" weapons. In the case of the US, he has decreed they are NOT needed, until he decides they are. It's fluid dynamics. In the Ukraine, he has decided that yes, AR15s are acceptable, until he decrees they are not. Now do you get it? He is a rare breed of elite who decrees if/what/when/where/why to the rabble.
All the while, he is either armed, or surrounded by armed guards.
I'm nostalgic for the days when Michael Moore didn't have TDS.
Anyway, as a liberal, I can solve the disconnect quite easily. A certain kind of leftist or Democrat (but not liberal) has convinced him/herself Ukraine's "democratic" trustworthy government is fighting for its life against the untrustworthy "undemocratic" government of Putin's Russia. But in our country, our government is both "democratic" and "trustworthy" and its only adversaries are outside the country, which the military can defend with its guns, or "domestic terrorists" inside this country, which our police and intelligence agencies, if given enough power, can protect us all from and the circulation of guns here actually endangers both the populace and the trustworthy, definitely democratic government.
Of course, a real liberal, a libertarian, or a conservative can see the immediate flaw in that argument. We're making an awful lot of assumptions about how trustworthy and democratic both the Ukrainian and the US governments are. So this liberal is fully in favor of arming the US populace. Hand out cannons as far as I'm concerned.
But thank you for another great article.
Sounds like you've spent some time in their echo chambers. (I have, too.)
After the events of the last few years I have will NEVER support any “gun control” of any sort. We are on our own and must be ready to defend ourselves.
Of course democrats know their donors make these rifles. That’s how they got them to donate one.
Good points. FYI, the number of "mass shootings" in the US involving AR-15s and AR-15 clones are few and far between. There have been exactly TWO school shootings with AR-15s since Sandy Hook and Uvalde is only the second involving elementary students. There have been four mass school shootings since and including Sandy Hook. You mention Charles Whitman. Whitman was found to have an astrocytoma brain tumor when he was autopsied. Although the report of the shooting discounted it as a factor, I'd like to mention that my late son had the EXACT SAME tumor. He liked guns and had a M-1 carbine. He called me up one night and said he was going to come to Texas and kill me with it because he blamed me for the issues he was having - headaches, etc. He had an MRI shortly afterwards and the tumor was discovered. Unfortunately, it was inoperable. He also had a major heart condition - reversed arteries. He died in his sleep one night a year or so later.
I must confess that other than for resistance of government, I don't know why anyone would want an AR-15. I qualified with and carried an M-16 for years. I'd much rather have a Winchester Model 70.
Lightweight, very accurate, modular, customizable, low recoil, easy to get parts and ammo for, the ability to switch out upper and lower receivers, and modern ones are very reliable are why it is so popular. I am rather indifferent to the 5.56 and I live in a rural area, so the LR-308 appeals to me more.
The left's ability to compartmentalize is impressive. The velocity with which they went from "YOUR BODY MY CHOICE" (vaccines) to "MY BODY MY CHOICE" (abortion) made my head spin.
Thanks Michael, always enjoy your articles
I am an AR15 owner, and enjoy this rifle at the range . As on Q, the Democrats are screaming about ARs again, but really, we all know they don’t give a flying fuck about the “children”..... they want these rifles.
Note to Democrats....... you’ll never take mine.
What a great parallel. The liberal commentariat is dishonest, that’s been clear for a while and this is another good example.
The logical fallacies presented here are so characteristic of the dystopian consciousness we endure daily it would be great to continue to develop parallel lines of thought. There is a shape to this rabbit hole. It requires thinking upside down and backwards to anything presented by these illogical psychotic “liberals”. Ask what their actual goals are and we will easily identify them. Far easier now than it was two years ago.
Thanks for raising this issue. Caitlin Johnstone said something similar:
https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/has-america-tried-bombing-its-mass?r=1zlqu&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I think the short answer is that the oligarchs want what benefits them whether or not it's in the public's interest, and the apparatchiks will cheer for that for some reason.
Digital networking monopolies are fully integrated arm of military-intelligence complex
E Schmidt knows “what” ?
I don’t too much care about any arguments for gun control. “Shall not be infringed” is quite clear. And yes, Joe Biden, you COULD buy a cannon back in the times of the founding fathers.
Shall not be infringed. If you don’t like that there are at least 150 other countries you can move to and not be around civilians with guns.
Just FYI my debit card would not authorize my purchase to subscribe to your substack. It was weird. Card works fine for all other purchases, just not this. Anyway I used a different card and it worked, but just wanted to let you know in case it is some strange form of financial censorship. Love your shit, btw.
We’re approaching two weeks without a post from Mr. Tracey. I’m willing to support alternative voices, but I’m not a charity.