I really shouldn't have to smartsplain to people that the opinions 16 year olds hold about anything don't really matter.  That should be axiomatic. My three year old is very unhappy her shipping box house got cut up for packing material.  She has strong opinions about this.  Those opinions aren't relevant.  She'll get over it.

In fact, most opinions don't matter, and I can offer an historical example.

Right after WWII, the US Army conducted a scientific study of combat engagements--ours, allies, enemy, every firefight and battle they could get data on, all the casualty reports, everything.

The conclusion was that 90% of combat engagements were under 100 meters, and 98% were under 300 meters.  The recommendation came down for a lighter, more effective bullet that would accomplish this, saving resources and enabling more ammo load.

The officers of the Infantry Board refused to accept this fact. They'd been in combat.  And who are you going to trust? Some guy in a lab, or the man who had been in combat?

And the answer is: The guy in the lab, who has time to be objective, not the guy scrambling around in the weeds, who isn't actually sure if he hit anything and what happened after.

Eventually, science prevailed, and at this point, pretty much every military in the world has gone (and some already had) from a 7-8mm bullet to a 5-6mm bullet. Us, Europe, ANZAC, Russia, China, everyone.

The US adopted the M-16 variant of the AR-15 starting in 1963 (yes, the AR-15 is probably older than you), and is still using an evolved variant.  Meanwhile, there are troops who've never used anything else insisting "wood is stronger than plastic" (Wrong) and that "we need a 'full power cartridge' capable of killing a man at 2000 yards." By which they mean a .30 caliber cartridge, without any scale to explain why that is magically "full power."  Nor with any support to the claim that it was even possible to see an enemy at 2000 yards, much less get him to hold still long enough to be hit, using a rifle that was sight limited to a 460 yard range anyway.

Moving to gun control on that note, we see false statements such as "military style weapons" (Pretty much every weapon in existence is based on a military development) and "high capacity clips," by which they mean "It's a standard capacity magazine but I don't like it even though I know nothing about it." And even bizarre, completely fabricated terms like "The shoulder thing that goes up" and "automatic bump stock."

And back to the earlier point. Gun control's only philosophical argument is waving the bloody shirt. There are literally zero facts to support the claims, when any objective study is done. In fact, four of the most widely cited sources against gun control all started out in support, and changed their minds based on facts. (Wright, Rossi, Kleck, Lott)

So then the bleat is, "Who are you going to believe? Some researcher with an "Agenda"(Because obviously, there's zero agenda to taking weapons away from people), or the kids who were at the shooting?

Well, that's easy.  It doesn't matter what a Tide Pod eater thinks. Especially when the ones being genuflected before weren't even at the shooting, they were in a completely different building.  That's like saying. "I wasn't in combat, but I was on the base near where it happened and I talked to a bunch of shooters, so my opinion on what rifle to use is important!"

No, not really. Science matters.  Opinion from a glory seeker who wants CNN coverage is not.

Those two narcissistic twits from Florida, one of whom admitted to being part of a group who bullied the shooter mercilessly, are utterly irrelevant on the subject of firearms.

And only a complete idiot even bothers to acknowledge they exist, much less waste any time listening to them.

If this offends you, you're obviously a complete idiot.  

I want you, for just a moment, to forget guns exist.  I want you to look at a product as just a product. 

Let's say the head of the Food and Drug Administration* said, "Alcohol affects the brain exactly the same way as cocaine.  Therefore, we are declaring alcohol to be a narcotic.  Narcotics are illegal, therefore, all alcohol and all equipment to produce alcohol are contraband and must be destroyed immediately.  No compensation will be paid because narcotics are illegal."

Let's note: 

1) The definition is blatantly false.

2) The definition contradicts long standing legal definitions.

3) No legislative process exists. This is a fiat declaration by a bureaucrat.

4) Failure to compensate for a legal product taken for public use ("Safety") violates the 5th Amendment requiring fair compensation.

5) Most importantly, this opens the floodgates for ANY bureaucrat to declare ANYTHING illegal.

Remember those handful of conservatives who've said, "Declare Islam not a religion but a political movement and terror front"?

If a bureaucrat has the authority to state that AND ENFORCE IT, there is no Republic. Literally any cabinet head, or possibly lower, can declare outlawry, steal property, seize anything, without even the pretense that an existing law was broken. Law will be whatever they say it is, any day of the week. Any religion can be illegal or mandatory. Anything can be contraband or mandatory. The rule of law simply fails to exist. If this doesn't terrify you, I guess you can go now. Good luck. There's nothing I can do when they quite literally do come to put you in those camps you fear, which just became a solid reality.


Now, moving back to the relevance of this thought experiment. You're probably very gleeful over the AG's ban on "bump stocks."  

You were probably unaware of bumpfire/slidefire stocks until they were used in the Vegas shooting. In fact, though, they've been in existence since 2006, approved by BATFE as "not a firearm." This was reviewed in 2010 under the 0bama administration, and confirmed that they were "not a firearm." You probably like and supported 0bama, and he found no reason to try to restrict bumpfire stocks.

You've probably heard a lot of hysteria about them, and have no idea how one actually works, or, more accurately, how a person operates it, since it doesn't do anything by itself.

The definition Sessions is using is completely false and inaccurate. It's literally as inaccurate as saying "Alcohol is a narcotic." The definition given is that it "Harnesses the recoil energy of the weapon to function." Which is provably false. Put a firearm equipped with a bumpfire stock on a bench, pull the trigger, it will fire a single shot only. One. Then it will do nothing.

The second claim is that, just like a machine gun, it allows firing multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger.  This is also provably false.  Again: Place it on a bench, pull the trigger, it fires one shot.  The trigger must be released before it can shoot again.

This cannot possibly be defined as a "machine gun" that fires more than one shot per pull of the trigger.  Yet, that is what Sessions has done, via a false statement--a lie.

The manufacture of machine guns has been illegal since 1986. Real ones command a high price. The finding of the Firearm Technology Branch was not only that these devices were not machine guns, but that in fact, they are not even firearms.

Sessions has falsely declared it to be a machine gun, and therefore contraband ex post facto, with absolutely no compensation for the "contraband," in complete contradiction to the experts' findings.

ATFE estimates the device and related industry are worth $200 million, which is tiny in business terms. However, every owner, seller, maker has money invested that is being stolen from them. No due process.  No legislative process.

Look above again. This decision is precedent for ANY Cabinet head to declare anything...or anyone, illegal, and subject to theft or imprisonment with no process.

If you want to work on legislation that bans these devices, with an accurate description, and a justification, I will certainly fight it all the way to SCOTUS under the 2nd Amendment. That is why we have a legislature and courts.  But if you support bureaucratic fiat, you are signing your own eventual death warrant, and there's nothing I can do to help you. I wish I were being dramatic, but I am not.

* And consider this. It's now becoming illegal to treat yourself for diarrhea: 

I heard that from a probably well-intentioned liberal woman today.

I'm sure she believes it.

The problem is, it's utterly untrue.

She probably means the AR-15, "popularly" used in a couple of high profile shootings, and falsely claimed for several others where the gun was "close enough" to an AR-15.

The AR-15 went on civilian sale in 1963. That's 55 years ago.  When did it suddenly become a problem?

The AR-15 is based on the AR-10. That came out in 1955.

There are literally hundreds of rifles (yes, that get used for hunting) derived from those designs.

The AK-47 predates both, to 1947.

The first semiauto rifle dates from 1885.

They all function in variations of the same mechanical process.

So you really can't ban "one."


Part 2:
In 1934, the National Firearm Act required certain weapons--machine guns, short barreled weapons, "silencers"(which aren't actually a weapon), and "destructive devices" to be registered, taxed insanely and accompanied by papers everywhere.

In 1986, the "Firearm Owners Protection Act" banned new machine guns.  Yes, you read that right.  That's like having a "Car Drivers Protection Act" that bans sports cars.

So, there are already banned guns.

Moving back, I'm particularly enamored of the Soviet SVT-38 rifle, from 80 years ago. Were your parents even alive then?

Now, if I lived in Canada, I could just buy one.  Yes, in Canada. With all its "reasonable gun control."  I could buy one.

In the US, I can only buy those that came into the country before a certain date. New importation is banned.

I can list hundreds of guns I can't get in the US that civilians in other countries can get.

So, even if you're being honest, you can't ban "one."  And the claim fails because hundreds of guns have already been banned.

And given that precedent, there is no reason for me to believe that if I just agree to letting you ban one more that somehow all our problems will be solved. In fact, every time something is banned, your side comes back and insists we have to ban yet something else to fix a "loophole."

We've "only banned one gun" a thousand times, and you and I seem to agree that it hasn't worked.

Now, let's do a comparison:

Let's say we banned ownership of Corvettes to "cut down on drunk driving deaths," because "no one needs a car that does three times the speed limit."

And then there was a drunk driving death with a Ferrari, so we ban those, too.

And then the Dodge Viper.

And then the Lamborghinis.

Meanwhile, up in Chicago, hundreds of people die in drunk driving accidents every day, but those are black people, and they get killed in Toyota Camrys, Chevy Impalas and old Ford Tauruses, which are "normal" cars.

Then tomorrow there's a high profile crash with a Lotus.

And you say, "We need to ban Lotuses to save lives.  It's only one car."

Would you really be surprised when I first stare at you, then tell you to grow up and learn something about the subject before you start opining?

It's not the cars.

It's not the guns.


Next I heard, "All we want is age limits and background checks. It's 'common sense.'"

Per Federal law, you have to be 18 to buy a rifle or shotgun. That is an age limit. It's the same age limit as for marriage, legal contracting, military service, employment and several other things.

Outrageously, while 18 year olds can carry pistols in the military and in police service, they have to be 21 to buy their own. But, as outrageous and immoral as that is, it's an age limit.

When one does buy a gun from a dealer, even at a gun show, one must fill out a BATFE Form 4473. Then, a phone call is made to the FBI to verify if this person, at this address, with this Social Security Number, is eligible.

That's a background check.

Now, if you're admitting you don't think the age limits are doing anything, I agree with you.

And if you don't think the background checks are working, I agree with you.

But my solution isn't, "Keep trying the same thing but harder, until it works." That's like drinking until you're sober, or smashing your hand with a hammer until it stops hurting. When I see something isn't working, I STOP DOING IT.

And this is why we can't have a discussion on the subject.  You're so ignorant of the matter you're not even wrong.

Did you see any of the debate around the recent "cut up your AR-15" fad?

To summarize:  There is a specific, legal way to destroy an AR-15. There is a specific, legal way to destroy an AK-47.  In fact, every firearm out there has a specific, ATF-approved way of destroying it.  The people who just chopped them in the middle:

FIRST, did not actually render the weapon inoperable. And if you don't know enough about guns to do that, then I'm probably glad you got rid of yours, though possibly selling it to someone more competent would be a better choice.

SECOND, they committed a felony by chopping the barrels short, per the National Firearms Act of 1934.  "Intent" does not matter.  Creating the felonious weapon is a crime.  If you then make a few more cuts, or hand it to the police, you have not destroyed the weapon in the approved manner, and that is a SECOND felony.

Do you grasp that? The gun control laws we already have make it illegal to even destroy your own gun in the wrong way.

Does it sound like more laws will make things any better?
Please. Do some research. It will require going to "gun nut" sites and the ATF's website, to find sources that actually understand the subject. And even on the "gun nut" sites, there will be errors, because the law is THAT complicated, incoherent, contradictory, outdated, obscure and specific all at the same time that compliance is a minefield even for people who want to comply and learn about it.

The danger you face is that by learning about the subject, you may come to agree that most of these laws serve zero purpose and only make matters worse.

Either way, once you have an idea what laws are out there, we can have that "Discussion" you want, rather than you demanding we do things that are already the law, or have already failed, or both.

It's actually the best thing they can do for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. (Well, other than support the Constitution, but we all know liberals are incapable of that.)

By doing so they demonstrate:

That they don't know enough about firearms to render one inoperable.  They keep chopping the middle of the barrel, leaving the receiver, bolt assembly and fire control mechanism intact, so it still shoots bullets. And no, I'm not "Gunsplaining" (per some gamma cuck who apparently got into the Marines).  I'm EDUCATING you. Because if you have no fucking clue how a firearm works, then your opinion on the matter is on par with a "Car safety" activist who doesn't know the difference between an engine and a transaxle.

AND in the process, creating an illegal sawed off rifle.  Which shows that:

They aren't even aware of the National Firearm Act of 1934--one of the oldest federal firearm laws, and most important (per their arguments). And if you have no fucking clue what laws are already on the books, then you should learn that before you start publicly masturbating for more.

That they believe "intent" matters for the NFA. Now, I'd actually like to see them accomplish this--it would reduce the power of that complete Fascist regulation. But if they aren't aware they're actually making points for our side, they should continue doing so. Thanks, fucktards.

That the NFA is obviously irrelevant, because even you, gun hater, thought it was perfectly okay to violate it and are defensive about doing so. "I didn't MEAN to be a criminal!" Yeah, you know how many innocent people have been trapped with that crap? Who never harmed anyone?

That telling the police they're going to break the law makes it okay--sort of like if they started a meth lab, but informed the police first. It just proves that the NFA is a complete pile of shit. Did I already say that? Well, it should be said again.

And that they believe they're too unstable to be trusted with a gun. "This gun will never harm anyone!" Neither will any of mine.  In my case, it's because I'm stable. If you're afraid yours will hurt someone, it means you believe the operator--yourself--is the problem.  So at least you got that part right. I'm actually totally cool with a ban on liberals having access to dangerous weapons, like firearms and ballots.

And if ATF doesn't follow up, then they've helped weaken the NFA. Thanks. That's actually a good thing. Every video of someone violating the NFA and not getting punished is an affirmative defense down the road. Of course, sawing off, rather than milling or turning a short barrel, is usually a criminal trick. So you've helped all their legal defenses, but then, no one ever claimed you were smart.  I know, I'm "gunsplaining" again.

If the BATFEces do follow up, the chopper is going to jail. Also a good thing.

So yes, let's encourage more Democrats to chop up their weapons, making normal people safer, and nibbling away at their previous bullshit law, which is such bullshit they instinctively recognize it's pointless, but want to pass something else.

You know what they say about people who keep repeating the same actions, expecting different results?

They're insane, and therefore shouldn't have access to firearms.

PS: Oh, yeah, and every one they cut up will be replaced within minutes by the quiet professionals of our firearm industry.