NRA released video praising AR-15s just 3 days after Orlando mass shooting

[Read the post]


Was there some point to this article? The video was correct in every way and, regardless, the AR platform is the most popular rifle in the country, with millions sold. It’s excellent for target shooting, hunting light game (it’s usual cartridge, the .223, is too low-powered to be legal for deer in most states), plinking with your kids or grandkids, and a better choice for home defense than your deer hunting rifle, for multiple reasons.

Of course, the article, after admitting an AR-15 wasn’t used in Orlando (who why write it in the first place…agenda, much?) goes on to claim that the Sig MCx that was used is an “assault weapon”. No, you gun-ignorant hoplophobe, it is “a rifle”, just like millions upon millions of semi-automatic rifles all over the world. There is no such thing as an “assault weapon” - there is a technical term of art, “assault rifle”, that describes a particular type of full-auto military firearm, but it doesn’t describe an AR-15. Josh Sugarmann, of the organization that used to be called Handgun Control, Inc., deliberately made up the “assault weapon” tag to fool people who don’t know much about guns into thinking they were full-automatic machine guns. He was successful enough to fool you, apparently.


From YouTube comments: #blackriflesmatter


Maybe…and I’m just spitballin’ here, but just maybe don’t extol the virtues, true or otherwise, of a specific tool three days after it was used to murder fifty people?


If everybody starts carying one of these for protection, I suppose future mass-shooters will have to plan ahead and buy some pretty good body armor.

Then, the only logical way to protect yourself from that threat would be to carry an assault rifle and wear body armor too.

Imagine what a great nightclub scene that would be. It’s all about making America great again!


It’s also apparently great for shooting little children and their teachers. You want to tell us more about how great it is? Describe the efficiency of the “not assault rifle” killing machine in killing innocent people for me. Because the gun doesn’t know the difference between the people it kills, so when you talk about home defense, you’re saying on the other side of the coin that it’s great for killing just about anyone, whether you’re justified in doing so or not.


What if this is an oxymoron because I want to stay free in a world without everyone having deadly weapons ready and waiting for an apparently statistically likely number of them to get angry, paranoid, or crazy enough to take out as many people as they can before the cops arrive?


It was pretty tone deaf. But you’d have to not be tone deaf to get that.

Isn’t there a funeral you can go laugh at or somthing?


Any gun has the potential to kill. Be honest you want to ban all guns. This has really nothing to do with AR-15 or other scary rifles for you. Going after a very common rifle and magazine size is not going to make a change. Pistols are used in gang violence much much more. I’m for concealed carry permits and removing gun-free zones. I believe we should start re thinking about stopping an ‘active shooter’ before they become a ‘mass shooter’.


You’d have to have thought the first time.

Lets stop them at the one gun store remaining in the state, with protestors holding pictures of dead people. And let’s make them wait 72 hours, and shove a probe up their vagina, or ass, too. (as some places make women do before receiving health care)

Can I assume you’re a “Good guy with a gun” because if so, that’s an assinine self assessment.

Any gun has the potential to kill.

The constitution doesn’t say you have a right to bear ammunition.


Hence the need to regulate them as the deadly weapons they are and not let them be mass manufactured and sold to every jim bob in the country who wants one. Because selling someone a gun is selling them the ability to kill multiple people easily in a short amount of time before you’re stopped. That god like power shouldn’t be in just anyone’s hands.

Nope, but I would restrict them much more severely. No semi-automatic rifles. No handguns. Just single shot hunting rifles and not allowed in the cities or suburbs. Ammunition should be in short supply and limited in numbers for purchase.

You have to start somewhere. Let’s start with the ones that have the largest available magazines. We can talk about outlawing handguns later when we’ve made progress on the semi-automatics.

And I’m for no one being able to shoot multiple people in a short amount of time because they got too angry or went crazy or had a bad day or someone cut them off on the road or because someone threw popcorn at them. Not having a gun on you makes those scenarios play out differently.

This is literally impossible to stop in advance if just about anyone can get a gun because you don’t know when people are going to snap. And not everyone even goes shooting when they snap, they apparently brood and plan for years which makes it even worse because they are even more effective like the latest shooter was. Guns are what allow this, not a lack of more guns in everyone’s hands. More guns just mean more potential for accidents, thefts, and even momentary homicidal rage.


Remember how immediately after that elderly man accidentally ran down a bunch of people in a Farmer’s Market in Santa Monica, the American Automobile Association released a video praising the virtues of the 1992 Buick LeSabre? And then all the car lovers ran out to buy one because they wanted a machine just like the one which had killed ten people and left another 63 injured?

No you don’t, because that would be fucking horrific.


Be honest you want to kill everyone with a gun.


Nonsense. We just want gun laws like all the other first-world nations have.

I don’t expect to live in a nation without ANY gun deaths, but there’s no reason that we, and we alone, should have to endure regular mass shootings that leave dozens of people dead at a time.


If the NRA wants people “protected from the bad guys”, why not let people have fully automatic rifles, or rocket launchers, grenades, nuclear bombs, and so on? Why is an automatic assault rifle banned, but not a semi-automatic assault rifle?


Nope, you’re talking about the outlier cases, a very few shootings played up big by the media because it’s news specifically because it’s rare, and because a large segment of the media is blatantly anti-gun and they’ll sensationalize anything they can to make it look like it’s a huge problem. You’ll notice they never play up the two to three MILLION cases a year where the mere presence of a gun, usually with having to fire it, stops or prevents a violent crime (and this includes mass shootings - some of them have been stopped by a Good Guy With A Gun).

Any firearm can kill people - people have been killed with the tiny .22 Short rimfire round. There is NOTHING that makes an AR-15 more deadly than any other rifle, and it is less deadly than most when using the most commonly available ammunition.

Nobody wants to see kids, teachers, or anybody else killed, but you can’t blame an AR-15 for doing it, or even for making it easier. It’s just “a rifle”, and fires one bullet every time you pull the trigger, and you can’t pull an AR-15 trigger any faster than any other firearm in the world.

Home defense use? It’s useful for that because it’s short, light, and fires that lower-powered .223 cartridge that is expected to not over-penetrate as many walls and furniture, and accidentally shoot your neighbor next door in his own house if you miss the intruder in your house. It can also accept (and usually comes with) 20 or 30 round magazines, so it’s supremely useful for outside scenarios - such as the Korean shopkeepers defending their stores/home during the LA riots when the police abandoned the area and left them to the tender mercies of the hordes of rioters/looters.

1 Like

Because there’s no such thing as a “semi-automatic assault rifle”.

There are “rifles” and there are “machine guns”, and the AR-15 is just “a rifle”, despite what the professional anti-gun organizations and the anti-gun (and generally firearms-ignorant) media are trying to get you to believe.

By the way, fully-automatic machine guns are legal to own in this country, except in a few states. They have become unbelievably expensive due to scarcity, but they’re still legal. And, of course, they’re commonly-used military arms, which is exactly what the Founders intended to guarantee with the Second Amendment - the 2nd isn’t about duck hunting. For the Founders’ ideas on the matter, see the collection at:

1 Like

I think you could look into restricting some characteristics on what kind of guns people can own. Though more generally I’d prefer they stop glorifying guns so much. The US’s trouble doesn’t come from it’s gun laws, it comes from the fact that they’ve become such an identity marker.


To accomplish what?

Then resist gun culture, the cooler guns are the more crazy people will be drawn to them.

I’m from Canada and the last true US-style mass shooting I can think of isÉcole_Polytechnique_massacre

Even with ~1/10th the population we are clearly less susceptible to mass shooters, and the answer is not more gun.

Oh, and the “good guys with guns” stopping active shooters is largely an action hero fantasy. I like to fantasize I’d just get a group to bull rush the shooter, almost no one ever does so I doubt I’d follow through, but I still think my fantasy is actually more plausible than yours since it doesn’t involve me trying to kill someone.

The problem with the good guy with a gun is he actually has to kill someone, I think that’s a hell of a lot harder than you realize. Soldiers in battles with clearly defined enemies and explicit legal orders to kill have trouble doing the deed. Do you really think it’s easy to pull the trigger when you’re not even sure what’s happening?


So, the NRA is taking a line from the George W. Bush playbook and urging us to go shopping after tragedy…it’s the neo-American way!