B5 Systems

Firearms Prohibitions Are Damaging To Our Nation’s Defense

I originally wrote and published an article with this theme back in 2012. Based on current events I felt it was time to revisit the subject. Once again, anti-civil rights groups are taking advantage of a tragedy to further their gun control agenda and attempt to take away the liberty of our citizens. The conversation is much larger than feelings, which are being manipulated by these groups who seek to chip away at our civil rights. This time, they are using children as pawns in their efforts. This article focuses on a relationship between commercial firearms industry and the ability to produce arms for National Defense and why the Second Amendment is the linchpin of that connection.


While these calls for additional firearms legislation are a direct threat our rights enumerated in the Constitution, they have other effects as well. A vibrant firearms industry, serving law-abiding citizens purchasing and responsibly using firearms results not only in innovation, but also a robust industrial base which can be called upon by our Nation in times of crisis. Since 9/11 all innovations in military firearms, whether targeting, accuracy, man-machine interface or lethality, have all been accomplished by industry.

Rarely do legislators consider the second and third order affects of laws. Only later, like ripples in a pond do these implications manifest themselves. Now, we can look at the AWB and its affects not only on crime, but also on national defense. Let’s not repeat mistakes of the past.

History has taught us that prohibition does not work. But, from 1994 until 2004 the American firearms industry suffered under a form of prohibition. The “Assault Weapons Ban” not only covered weapon features but also magazines over 10 rounds. This legislation did nothing to alter crime and, once lifted, did not result in any increased gun violence. Overall, it was useless legislation.

These very magazines and weapon features that were banned under the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcemenent Act of 1994” have been crucial to the US Department of Defense’s and our Allies small modernization as part of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as globally against piracy, terror and general mayhem. During the 10-year period of the AWB, US businesses curtailed small arms innovation. The point of a business is to make money. When there is little market for a product (as was the case during the AWB), the business case is not there to service it. This was most definitely the situation with magazines for the M9 Beretta Handgun. Many who served early in the war will remember poorly produced high capacity magazines for that weapon. This is because there was no competition in the marketplace due to a lack of market. Rather, government contractors for that magazine were allowed to produce products that performed poorly on the battlefield since there was no competition. There was no innovation. A pistol magazine might seem inconsequential to some, but a pistol is a self-defense weapon. If the magazine fails, the pistol is useless. The same goes for sub-standard magazines for rifles. What good is an Infantryman if he can’t engage the enemy?

It has been more than a decade since the ban was lifted and an entire industry has grown and flourished, producing innovative solutions for both law-abiding citizens and our military alike. American troops are the best equipped in the world and other countries look to us for technical innovation in small arms. We must maintain that edge.

Contact your Congressional representation (switchboard 202-225-3121) and let them know how you feel about any proposed firearms legislation which would hurt our military’s warfighting capability. A strong Second Amendment fosters a robust American firearms industry which contributes directly to our National Defense.

95 Responses to “Firearms Prohibitions Are Damaging To Our Nation’s Defense”

  1. J says:

    I live in Illinois crazy right now. The anti-gun and anti-2nd Amendment (2A) party from Chicago that runs Illinois is rushing through 5 laws that will out law magazines over 10 rds, AR and other firearms, raise the age to 21 for long guns, restrict visitation to the state to less than 24 hours with to anyone outside the state with magazines over 10 rds and ARs, you must be passing through only now.

    I think we must decide where we live more carefully as pro-2A individuals and families. We must hurt the anti-2A states where it counts by moving to pro 2A states, while taking our tax revenue for the state and purchasing power to pro-2A friendly states.

    • Kit Badger says:

      I think this is the real play. Move to states that tell the Fed to f-off on new gun legislation and at the same time let the “utopian” states sleep in the bed they’ve made…

      Relocating isn’t easy, but neither is becoming a criminal with the stroke of a pen.

      • Sean says:

        When I was getting ready to get out of the Corps, that was my exact thought process. I was contacted for a number of jobs that I could have very easily snagged for a good chunk of money in places like CA, IL, WA, and DC, but I had already decided that I was done compromising on the 2nd Amendment after the Corps forced me to live in CA for several years against my will. Ultimitely, I moved to southern AZ and took a bit of a pay cut (offset by a cheaper cost of living) in order to maximize my 2A rights, and to keep gov’t interference in my life to a minimum. In the end, you have to pick what matters most to you.

        • Stefan S. says:

          Problem we have is that the libs have created such nightmares as CA. IL, NY, DC etc. etc. Now they are moving to red states and are slowly turning them purple. TN, NC/SC etc. Frankly, I can see of no place that is Lenin’s useful idiot proof theses days. 30 years of academia pushing out pro-communist anti-constitution SJWs.

    • Nick C says:

      I generally worry about this line of thinking. While I agree that it may work in the short term I think that as a whole most would choose to be where jobs are readily available. Often this means large cities or urban areas and often Democratically (the party not the system of government) controlled.

      There are few that would choose to leave a state or locale that contains jobs, friends and family because of their support for 2A.

      There is something to be said for speaking with your wallet but I think we are losing ground due or desire to be non-confrontational. We shy away from talking about guns or speaking our mind about such subjects in mixed company or at work for fear of being labeled. The media and those who would seek to take away those rights feel they are on the moral high ground and are completely owning the discussion. We need to do more to take that back.

      I would love to see more of us reaching our across the aisle and having civil conversations about the facts of firearms, the constitution and realities of these laws. Currently we have a small number of outspoken members of the community doing all the talking, and although that is helpful we can’t expect to gain ground or maintain our current system if we do not start speaking up.

      That said, Kit Badget, nothing but respect.

      • Kit Badger says:

        I follow you on all those points Nick. The good news with respect to jobs though, is more and more are becoming ones that can be done remotely.

        And moving to a different state, is the ultimate beauty of a Republic. 50 different experiments in Liberty. Granted the Federal Government has greatly white washed all the states, but there is still huge benefits from one to the other.

        I absolutely agree with the speaking out part. Regrettably, most the people doing it are not very articulate, or so hard lined that they turn people off from the word go. Because you’re bringing Logic to an Emotional party…

        I think true headway happens on a one on one basis. I made this little sub 2 minute video for my local gym’s Facebook page and have had a number of people take me up on it. The real message is at the end.


        • Nick C says:

          Love the video, have been thinking about how to best reach out to some people I know as well. May give this a shot.

          Sadly we are in a position today where both sides are becoming more and more dug in with less desire to talk. I understand why but it’s not healthy.

          I’m glad to have someone as clear headed as yourself on the side of 2A.

  2. demure says:

    I’m curious how the readers here feel about legislation that only involves preventing people with criminal records and mental health issues from legally purchasing guns. As the rare liberal vet, it seems that the pro gun community is always against _any_ legislation, regardless if it’s scope is limited to criminal records/mental issues.

    • Chuck says:

      How does the left feel about restricting the 1st amendment for people with mental health issues or criminal records?

    • Easy E says:

      Which mental health issues? A criminal record can already remove one’s right to bear arms. Do the criminals now currently care about laws saying they can’t own a firearm? What about the shooters who were seeing mental health professionals – multiple in some cases – that weren’t perceived as a risk until after the fact? Should we strip the of anyone seeing a mental health professional?

    • Dellis says:

      This idea, while sounding good in that realm, would most likely be a disaster if implemented.

      How many veterans, LEO’s and first responders would be seen as “having mental health issues” once they are prescribed any type of anti-depressant or mood altering drug?

      Then, who determines who is mentally unfit? Government appointed doctors and therapists who have graduated from left leaning liberal universities?

      It’s scary enough Trump saying he wants to take guns first then worry about due process. That’s just crazy talk there.

      • Sean says:

        This is what happens when people base their primary candidate choice off of “muh wall” or “er jerbs” and take his word when he promises to be their 2A ally, when even the smallest amount of 8th grade-level cursory research would reveal that he’s always been extremely squishy on the 2nd Amendment, and doesnt really understand how the constitution works in general.

    • jellydonut says:

      Criminal records are one thing, although still questionable, but ‘mental health issues’ is a complete can of worms.

      Who gets to decide? Is a shrink supposed to decide if you get weapons or not? Someone who is actually mentally ill and wants to own firearms is now going to lie his way through diagnosis, or avoid diagnosis and treatment altogether, to avoid losing his civil rights. People are going to go without treatments. This is much more dangerous than the status quo.

      Meanwhile, what kind of due process prevents healthy people from being labeled ‘mentally ill’ just so they can’t have weapons? Bet you 50 bucks this is exactly what happens in certain areas in California and other districts that have bought the farm already. Oh, you want a weapon? Clearly some kind of murder fantasist. Mentally ill, check.

    • Mark says:

      I must be missing something. Currently, if you’ve been convicted of a felony or a crime of domestic violence you can’t legally purchase a firearm. The form 4473 also asks if you’ve been adjudicated mentally defective or been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. A “yes” answer to those questions bars you from legally purchasing a firearm.

    • J. Thornhill says:

      Demure: Have you read the replies to your original query? Extremist gun owners *need* mentally ill people to have access to firearms; it’s their scapegoat. Every time there’s a mass shooting, extremist gun owners say “It isn’t a gun issue, it’s a mental health issue.” But as you see here, they have no intent to address the acquisition of firearms by violent, mentally ill people.

      • Nick C says:

        J. Thornhill, that is an unfair characterization at best. The reason most of us firearm owners are scared of such legislation is that “mentally fit” isn’t currently defined. If there were a law written that laid out the exact new cases where we would consider someone mentally unfit for firearms purchases I’m all for looking it over and having that discussion.

        The CDC recently decided “gaming addiction” is a mental disorder but didn’t lay out exactly when casual gaming turns to an addiction. If I play call of duty with some friends for a few hours a week does that now make me mentally unfit to purchase a firearm?

        It’s a slippery slope and in general it’s very hard to tell how often it would help vs hurt.

      • Jester says:

        Thornhill you know you are spinning your wheels and getting nowhere trying to paint traditional American citizens as extremists, right? Just because you and your beta friends at “Every town for gun safety” carelessly throw around words that scare you, it doesn’t mean normal people in the real world are going to fall for it.

    • Steve says:

      Want to quash the drive to include the ambiguous ‘mental health issues’ as part of a new law? Ensure post-partum depression is on the list of disqualifying diagnoses.

    • Justin says:

      You’re not thinking things through to the logical conclusion. What crimes disqualify gun ownership? What mental conditions disqualify gun ownership? What political establishment controls the APA? When you give Marxists an inch they always take a mile. Any compromise is a loss for us and a win for the Marxists. You’re talking about defining the qualifications for natural born rights on standards that can be changed with the stroke of a pen or the ruling of a bureaucrat. Do you understand that laws have been passed already in 1933, 1968, 1986, and 1994 and still the Marxists aren’t satisfied? Now you know why compromise isn’t an option.

  3. Dellis says:

    “While these calls for additional firearms legislation are a direct threat our rights enumerated in the Constitution, they have other effects as well. A vibrant firearms industry, serving law-abiding citizens purchasing and responsibly using firearms results not only in innovation, but also a robust industrial base which can be called upon by our Nation in times of crisis.”

    Stores, actual physical stores in our cities, are all worried about losing sales to online competition, if not they should be. The actions of some of these stores within the last few days advances this worry. By restricting or banning guns, ammo and accessories local buyers are pushed to the internet.

    I personally prefer buying locally whenever I can. This puts money back into my community but it’s getting so out of hand how these stores get so worked up over a handful of SJW on Twitter or Facebook and jump on the latest trend. Next week it’s onto something else.

    • SSD says:

      You’re confusing big box national chains with locally owned, actual gun stores. Purchasing from them is “buying local”. What’s more, even if you buy online, you’ve got to use a local FFL for the transfer.

  4. Glen says:

    Bummer dudes! Looks like you all gonna lose at least some of your military style semi autos! That’s unless you all get it on with that “Take It Out My Cold Dead Hands” type Civil War you’ve been promising us for the last five decades!

    Oh by the way remember this:-


    Rest of the gun owning World is watching with great interest!!

    • J. Thornhill says:

      The 2nd Amendment “Civil War” can only happen under a Democratic administration. You’ll notice the militias and 3%ers lose steam when their guy is in the oval office. This is just sound and fury signifying nothing; firearms extremists yelling into the echo chamber.

      • Steve says:

        You firearms eunuchs are so adorable with your jealous snark.

        • Jester says:

          It’s cute how the anti-freedom nutjobs try to deflect the attention from their attempts to abuse civil rights by desperately yelling words like “Firearms extremist.” As if trying to co-opt the extremist label and use it against traditional freedom-minded citizens will disguise their attempts to turn us into a mediocre socialist country like those in Europe.

    • CapnTroy says:

      Glen – Your wife thinks that both of you should start seeing other men…

  5. Mehmaster says:

    If we were really worried about tyranny we would all have javs, claymores, stingers and a host of other asymetrical tools.It’s 2018 for God’s sake. Ask your buddies in Southern pines or anyone who has worked eucom recently. Isr, sigint, and ew is what’s getting dudes waxed both in centcom and recently in Ukraine. This conversation seems divorced from reality. Cyber, cellphone exploitation, and long endurance isr are what you dudes should be worried about. Just keep it real. you like having baller ass guns to play with at the range as a consumer. And as a manufacturer you like sleeping on piles of money at night. All this sheepdog shit is pretty silly. Donate blood, sponsor a child or volunteer at the VFW.

    • Chuck says:

      Donating blood, sponsoring a child, and volunteering is all hooah shit, but here’s keeping it real: there’s a damn war going on on the southern border. The federal government doesn’t have the resources to contain it 24/7, and seriously there are good Americans fighting to keep their families safe from that crap. It’s not all just baller shit. Some people legitimately have a pressing need for some serious artillery. And I for one support their right to defend themselves.

    • SSD says:

      Excellent disinformation Operations!

      • Mehmaster says:

        Maybe, maybe not I have heard stories of ” minutemen” in Arizona working in shooter/spotter teams smoking cayotes and drug mules with 338 Lapua. So what is it tyranny, public safety, or border enforcement? Sheepdog has more missions than oda it seems. I get that you and others here may have the training and mindset to be a net positive when shtf. Is this true for a majority of gun owners and cc people?

        • benb says:

          I’m not sure anyone knows what % of gun owners would be a “net positive when shtf”. Many civilians who train feel the need to not talk about it on the internet because public opinion (even from their own side) is against them.

        • Chuck says:

          I would really hope someone on an ODA would understand the right person in the right plce at the right time makes all the difference.

  6. shua says:

    Expect more tragedies sooner rather than later if Trump doesn’t budge.

    • SSD says:

      You actually believe that any of the current slate of proposed firearms legislation will prevent someone from walking into a “gun free” zone and murdering people?

      • James says:

        I took it as a comment on ” convenient” timing of shootings and the amount of press they get.LV and the church shooting didn’t turn into what they wanted because of the targeted demographic, so they “found” one that fit the narrative ( completely skipped the KY shooting). Whether they do or don’t get what they want, they are already looking for the next event to reinforce their story.

    • benb says:

      Trump’s proposal to ban bump stops would not have stopped either the Vegas shooting or the Florida one from happening. Even if bump stocks were illegal the Vegas shooter would have just did the same thing with more accurate fire.

      A solution that does not address the problem will basically gauranty that the problem will happen again. Then what? Do we “compromise” again?

  7. William says:

    Spot on. During the Clinton ban, the fight for Bosnia and Kosovo was on. Before our flights (AC-130U aircrew) in country, we would have to prep our M9s by sliding out the first round from the magazine. We’d then turn the mag upside down and let the rest pour out. Yes, pour out. The mag springs were totally shot. And due to the “High Cap Mag Ban”, our govt/LE use only mags were pretty much shoddy crap made by only one or two companies. We would then disassemble the mag to remove the spring. Stretch out the spring, reassemble. Hope that if you needed it, the mag would function correctly. Point of the story: any ban on firearms innovation has a huge ripple effect. Because there wasn’t a civilian market for magazines, only a few companies made them. This resulted in shoddy worksmanship because there just wasn’t any money in it. Banning rifles with “scary” features will also stifle innovation.

    • DSM says:

      Dude, I can tell you that’s not peculiar to your experience. Our duty mags always stayed loaded in the multi drawer tool boxes in the armory. The M9 mag springs wouldn’t necessarily take a set but the act of chambering the first round a couple times a day, 365 days a year started to wear them down. The first round would be the only rounds that chambered, the rest would sit happily in the mag.
      M16 mags would bulge floor plates and feed lips would get bent out of spec from being smacked into the rifle every shift. It was all a hot mess and yes, mags were cleaned and rotated as best we could with the budget we had, or didn’t have is more like it.
      When I got up in stripes and took over at the range I made sure to manage the funds so we could rotate in fresh mags to the on-duty guys on a constant basis.

  8. Loopy says:

    Not to mention what arming teachers will do for firearms innovation!

    • TominVA says:


    • SamHill says:

      Oh, how fresh! How modern! Mere criticism with no idea of your own. The postmodernist failure – critique with out the ability to create.

      Consider that guns in schools could be the perfect place for smart gun innovation, smart safes that call law enforcement when used, body armor tech right down to teacher lady CCW gear, stun guns, who knows?

      You won’t, because your only power is criticism. You can only chip away at things, not build.

      • TominVA says:

        Sam, teachers do not want to be armed. It’s a bad idea.

        • SamHill says:

          Some do. You do not speak for all teachers. You do not know what all teachers want.

          Allowing is different than forcing.

        • Joey Johnson says:

          As a husband of a teacher. My wife, carries outside of school. Then when she gets into the school parking lot she locks the firearm in the glovebox (law here in my state. Can have a firearm on school grounds as long as you have it locked up). But she would have no problem. Carrying in the school. And she is a rd grade teacher.

        • Joey Johnson says:

          As a husband of a teacher. My wife, carries outside of school. Then when she gets into the school parking lot she locks the firearm in the glovebox (law here in my state. Can have a firearm on school grounds as long as you have it locked up). But she would have no problem. Carrying in the school. And she is a rd grade teacher!

          • Jester says:

            Joey, what you have told us is not possible!! The great Tom in Virginia has assured us that absolutely no teacher would ever want to carry a gun into school!!

  9. SamHill says:

    First let me say that I am a proponent of less regulation, not more.

    But, if some people want more gun control, I suggest we try more speech control first.

    If you are the type of psych patient who has ever said “Donald Trump is LITERALLY Hitler.” you should not be taken seriously in the national debate on other people’s rights. If you are a weak, coward with an irrational fear of inanimate objects, you should not be involved in a conversation on gun control.

    To understand this clearly, the same people who worry Trump is “LITERALLY HITLER” want him to take some guns away. These are the type of retards that fill social media with their fear induced, poorly aimed screeching. After an event like this all the cowards gather up and cheer on inanimate object control. They are continuously silent that gun regulations don’t stop hundreds of murders per year in cities like Chicago, nor does it appear that they desire a solution for it.

    • Sean says:

      It would be an interesting piece of troll legislation by an outgoing senator/congressman. I’m sure they could make a pretty lengthy metric-based argument showing what percentage of recent terrorist attacks were either inspired or assisted by ISIS/AQ-based propaganda and literature freely available online. My only fear is such legislation might actually pass and hamper our rights even more.

  10. Fernando says:

    Legit question, you claim national defense suffered from the AWB. How? Can you elaborate?

    • James says:

      He explained it pretty clearly. Civilian manufacture of arms( and other things) ensures competition and accelerates development due to the amount of money a company can afford to spend on it. It also reduces cost and creates production capability. Everything from optics ,to free-floating handguards, to ammunition, to magazines have advanced hugely in the last 13 years( would be even further along if not for remaining regulations) because companies can afford development of things the military didn’t even know it needed.

    • SSD says:

      Did you read the article? Or the comments which amplify what I wrote?

  11. patrick sweeney says:

    OK, here’s one: at the time of 9/11, magazine production for the M16/M4 was concentrated in three or four companies. If there wasn’t a .gov need at the moment, then there weren’t any magazines being made at all. If the bad guys had any grasp of a modern manufacturing system at all, then half a dozen mysterious fires would have stopped magazine production, stopped M16/M4 production (Colt was the only maker then for .gov needs) and ammo as well.

    No big deal, you say? If there were no new items coming into the supply system, how long could we have sustained any ground action overseas? Why, until the supply in the warehouses ran out. That might take a while, but the questions would be: could the manufacturing base be reconstituted before the existing inventory was used up?

    Some things we have to make here, because we can’t depend on overseas manufacturers to be willing (or their governments, consider China) to supply us if we need stuff. If there’s a bottleneck in the supply, then we can be royally screwed if someone blocks that.

    • Sean says:

      Hell, the crappy AWB-era mags I was using in my M16 for qual couldnt even get through a string of fire without having at least 1 double feed back in 04.

      • Chuck says:

        On top of that, think of how long it takes to get those out of the supply stream. My last year doing a qual was 2015, and I still had one or two of those old AWB mags. Spring so lose you could pack 34 rounds in.

  12. TominVA says:

    Gosh there’s a lot wrong here.

    “The conversation is much larger than feelings, which are being manipulated by these groups who seek to chip away at our civil rights.”

    Manipulating feelings? Presumably by “these groups” you’re also including the NRA. Watch any of their “News” videos lately? Sheesh!

    “This time, they are using children as pawns in their efforts.”

    You mean the children who were murdered by a guy armed with an assault rifle? I guess the parents of those murdered kids are using the deaths of their children as weapons to further their liberal leftist agenda? They were probably looking forward to it, right? Seriously, do you really expect people not to react to a tragedy like this? SSD you need to reconsider that one. I won’t fault you if you take that comment out. Really bad.

    “While these calls for additional firearms legislation are a direct threat our rights enumerated in the Constitution…”

    There’s only one right we’re really discussing here, and the pro-2A crowd is, right now, the greatest threat to it…by refusing to acknowledge that the average citizen has no reasonable need for that kind of firepower. They’re backing themselves into an increasingly untenable corner. In the words of Chief Brody: “Larry, the summer is over. You’re the mayor of “shark city”. These people think you want the beaches open.”

    “This legislation [1994 AWB] did nothing to alter crime and, once lifted, did not result in any increased gun violence.”

    Mass shooting deaths 1949 – 1999 (50 years): 140
    Mass shooting deaths 2005 -2018 (13 years): 313 – that’s post AWB.

    That data from a list of 23 shootings per Wikipedia (if you have better numbers I’d be interested). Note also, that the total for some shootings includes the perpetrator (s) in cases where they were killed or killed themselves.

    Clearly things spiked AFTER the demise of the AWB, and while a there were undoubtedly a number of contributing factors e.g., lack of mental healthcare, failure to investigate, etc., undeniably access to assault weapons was one of them. I’m betting it would be pretty hard to shoot someone with a rifle you don’t have, no matter how crazy you are.

    Now on to your thesis.

    “…government contractors for that magazine [M9 pistol] were allowed to produce products that performed poorly on the battlefield since there was no competition.”

    I wasn’t there, but presumably the M9 and its magazine were subjected to rigorous testing prior to Beretta being awarded the contract. Assuming this was the case, there was nothing wrong with the design, and I’m pretty sure the competition was fierce. Post award in a contract this size, competition ceases to be a factor and it’s incumbent upon contractors to deliver per their contracts and upon the government to ensure that they do. Assuming Beretta’s contract was specific enough to guarantee the desired performance, the issue becomes one of quality assurance and proper program management by the government. Competition is not relevant here. BTW, don’t forget the cracked slides. In the Marine Corps at least, there was cap per slide of like, if memory serves, 3,000 rounds.

    None of this in anyway supports your argument. I’m trying to think of something that would. We’ve done a decent job arming our military historically. There have been failures and some glaring ones like the M16, but that at least was a result of mismanagement by the government, not a lack of commercial competition. And look at the Army right now. Lots of competition out there, lots of weapons – some really good ones – and it’s still struggling to field a better, more effective rifle. This after how many years of war? 17?

    Or consider personal clothing and equipment. Gore-Tex was on the market LONG before the Army and Marine Corps adopted it. Better, lighter sleeping bags and fabrics for long underwear were plentiful, but what was I issued when I went to Korea? Chicken feather bags and wool/cotton long underwear – ironically Korean war era design. Plenty of commercial competition. Zero desire to improve on the part of the government.

    “…firearms legislation which would hurt our military’s warfighting capability”?

    No, I’m not seeing it.

    • Dellis says:

      Lost me at “assault rifle”.

      Unless you speak of just this one rifle in the sense it was used in an assault and not a blanket statement to mean ALL semi automatics? Now the “full semi-automatics” I will march with you to get those banned!

    • James says:

      Your stats conveniently leave out that 1949-1993 were pre ban, and 2000-2004 isn’t in them at all.

      The next time you see a Soldier, Marine or Airman with a Garmin 401 on his wrist, peltors on his head, a Samsung Galaxy Note on his chest, wearing crye multicam Beyond soft shell pants, and a Patagonia 3a jacket, carrying a rifle using Magpul Pmags,and a significant p320 sidearm with a 21 Rd mag in a safariland holster ,think about how your experience is different than it is now.

      • TominVA says:

        No convenience. The stats were what I could find in a fairly short time. So the point is what? Shootings happened before and during the ban, so that ban was pointless? Well maybe THAT ban was.

        But, that AWB didn’t ban existing weapons in the hands of citizens right? A new AWB could do that.

        Right, so innovation DOES occur that the military can leverage. That’s great. But SSD’s argument is that a new AWB would stifle innovation and thus hurt defense. His discussion does not support that. Frankly neither does your counter. In a world with a new, more stringent ban, I bet DoD could still get a better rifle if it asked industry. Happens all the time. DoD says it needs a new war widget, industry delivers, sometimes with expensive kinks, but those get worked out.

        But let’s take an AW design like the HK416, now arguably one of if not the best out there. Highly highly regarded by the warfighter, right? Wasn’t that developed in response to military requirements? Wait, wasn’t Larry Vickers involved? It didn’t emerge via competition in the commercial market right? If so, there you go. Great things can and do happen to equip warfighters strictly in response to military needs, not civilian desires. A new ban would not impact that.

        • James says:

          As far as the 416 goes, while it didn’t come directly from the commercial market, many of the components were due to commercial development(free float handguard, piston system) . And as good.as the 416 is, it’s not the Pinnacle, nor is it finished. The Marines are wanting LPVO, MLOK rails……… All of which come from the civilian world. The trouble with top down development is that you have to choose a direction, civilian development you don’t have that handicap. A hundred different directions at once to observe and choose from and tweak if needed. The Army has tried several times to find a new rifle and shits the bed every time, because it can’t decide what it wants, meanwhile the civilian market is building guns as light as an m4 in calibers that shame a 7.62 in many ways.

          • TominVA says:

            Ok, good points all taken. So for the sake of this discussion, I concede that innovations in the commercial sector have improved the effectiveness of the warfighter. But the argument then needs to be made is that these innovations – many of which seem to come from Germany? – are so significant that it’s worth the risk to civilians and school children. Nobody is going to buy that.

            Plus, you just made a pretty compelling case that the real problem rests with the government. In the case of rifles, they just can’t seem to get their act together. If SSD readers are going to call their reps and senators, maybe they should complain about that.

            • James says:

              Free float around is a US development ( Olympic arms) unless you can find an earlier version. The LPVO built for an AR is by and large also US commercial development and use , military use is at the early stages. Most current optics also were largely driven by civilian markets, or at least made more viable for the companies that make them. Piston AR’s were also us civilians . No country in the world has pushed the AR in so many different directions, simply because of the millions of people who own them, and the myriad of uses they serve.

              The government is incapable of covering the vast number of development avenues, because 1 . Centrally directed 2. Bound by current doctrine 3. Will never be able to fund every avenue 4 . Will never have a monopoly on the talent that creates things.

    • James says:

      Also you might want to consider that three of your 23 shootings were terror related……

      • James says:

        And several didn’t involve rifles at all….

        • TominVA says:

          Which ones didn’t involve rifles? Or, a better question: which ones DID involve rifles post ban?

          The biggest body counts by far – Orlando and Vegas – did involve rifles.

          • James says:

            Orlando was terror related….

            • TominVA says:

              Where’d the guns come from?

              • Chuck says:

                I’d put $5.00 on some connection to a certain gun running operation south of the border.

                • cat blaster says:


                  • Adun says:

                    Terrorism is generally defined as using violence to instill fear in a population for political gain. A school shooting is not by definition terrorism unless the motivation of the shooter was political in nature.

                    Here is the exact definition from google if you disagree with me.

                    the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

              • James says:

                It was a Sign MCX , purchassed from a local store, but you have to understand that terror ties make that moot. Charlie Hebdo the fuckers had Ak’s and RPG’s, none of which are legal in France.

                • TominVA says:

                  Moot how? So if terrorists can’t buy it at a gun store they’ll just smuggle them in or buy from someone who does? So our response is, hey, they’ll get them anyway so who cares if it’s easy for them?

                  • James says:

                    The point is the organization and it’s logistics capability in denied environments.

    • DSM says:

      Hi Tom, normally I wouldn’t get in the middle of a discussion especially one where someone is firmly set in their opinion but this statement you made intrigued me because I’ve seen it made many, many other places before:
      “…by refusing to acknowledge that the average citizen has no reasonable need for that kind of firepower.”
      We can reconcile a statement like this by stating a given society can develop and establish norms and behaviors. It’s the essence of all rules and laws essentially. The “reasonable need” or just plain “reasonable” reference is an often rehashed term in our laws specifically. It’s everywhere.
      What I think is more difficult to reconcile is when you’re using it as a specific weapon to restrict or remove something. I can look all around my home and I can say there is no reasonable need for my wife to have so many shoes or purses. No reasonable need to have a car capable of exceeding the speed limit. No reasonable need to have one type of breakfast cereal over the other and so on and so forth. Here in America we can have all these things in whatever form we desire because pure and simple utility is not something we have to prove really to anyone except our bank accounts.
      In fact this is always something I’ve faulted, from a basic marketing standpoint and not just stance, the NRA for not doing and that is putting proposed firearm legislation into a context that translates to everyone. Not everyone owns a gun and not everyone even cares one way or another about owning a gun so their talking points always fall short of anything meaningful outside their most ardent supporters or detractors. The easiest being a car; “You have no reasonable need to have a large SUV and we can show you with hard numbers and grisly pictures what death machines they are…” Now we’re talking about legislating something most people can relate to and it puts it into context. But that’s getting into marketing and a whole different tangent…

      In another reply you related the ’94 AWB did not prohibit ownership or even production of compliant version firearms but that a renewed ban could close up those loopholes and force a prohibition on ownership, confiscation, voluntary turn in, whatever. Has there ever been an after-the-fact ban on anything in our history requiring a loss of property? I can think of private gold ownership during the Depression but the gov’t still had to pay for what was still private property and still didn’t eliminate all private ownership. Even invoking eminent domain would have its limits. Is there even a precedent for this?

    • Brian says:

      You cited wikipedia as proof the 94 AWB was effective in reducing mass shooting deaths? Please cite the original source of the data.

    • another Ed says:

      “There’s only one right we’re really discussing here, and the pro-2A crowd is, right now, the greatest threat to it…by refusing to acknowledge that the average citizen has no reasonable need for that kind of firepower.”

      Who are you to decide what is “reasonable need” for us?

      “Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen.” – Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha program.
      “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”.

    • Jester says:

      TominVA said “You mean the children who were murdered by a guy armed with an assault rifle? I guess the parents of those murdered kids are using the deaths of their children as weapons to further their liberal leftist agenda? They were probably looking forward to it, right? Seriously, do you really expect people not to react to a tragedy like this? SSD you need to reconsider that one. I won’t fault you if you take that comment out. Really bad.”

      Yet Tom conveniently forgot that only one week before the Florida school shooting, there was a school shooting in Kentucky. The difference is/was, the part of Florida where the shooting took place is filled with the leftists with whom Tom is so in love, while the shooting in Kentucky took place in what is probably one of the top 3 2nd Amendment-friendly states in the U.S. Somehow these “hicks” in Kentucky were able to get on with their life and bury loved ones without blaming an inanimate object.

      So yes, the progressive losers who wish to turn our country into a socialist shit hole like so many countries in Europe will most definitely use a tragedy for political fodder. SSD was not wrong.

  13. James says:

    Virginia tech , Luby’s, Ft Hood, Edmond post office, Atlanta, Navy Yard, and a few others. A number of other shootings involved AWB compliant guns like M1 carbines.

    • TominVA says:

      Well, we COULD ban those too, right?

      • James says:

        No, no you can’t. This is basic, tech, over a hundred years old. What you get when you ban them is gangs running small shops turning out much easier to produce SMGs. Just Google improvised submachine guns Brazil( or Gaza for that matter). Google hand made pistol Phillipines.

        As far as confiscation, good luck.

        • TominVA says:

          Yes you can.

          So if we do, the SMGs will be in the hands only of MS13 and the like? Yeah, that’s a problem, but at least we know who the enemy is (well sort of). We won’t have to worry about another nutcase LEGALLY acquiring as much firepower as he can afford and wiping out 50 or so citizens.

          No confiscation. Just turn in. You got a year to say goodbye to your baby. After that, if you get caught with one, you lose it and pay a fine big enough to buy a small car. And of course, if yours is stolen and used in a murder, well…that would be bad.

          • Dellis says:

            So again, bad guys get to keep their weapons. Good people SOL?

            How’s that smart? How many good guys go in and shoot up places?

            Also, there is what, an estimated 300 million guns in America? You think you can account for every single one thru a “turn your gun in drive”?

            Then there’s this lil thing called the 2A. I know it’s old and archaic but it’s still there and it’s not going anywhere.

            • Terry Baldwin says:


              I truly appreciate you coming into these debates and taking your best swing. I also note that this has been one of the most civil of the discussions that have appeared lately on SSD on the subject. Kudos to all for talking to each other rather than screaming past each other.

              Of course Tom, I also think you are as wrong as wrong can be. What happened the last time we banned something that had previously been legal? Did it eliminate alcoholism or the social issues related to alcohol abuse?

              It did not. Rather, it encouraged enormous criminal enterprises and made countless previously law abiding citizens instant criminals. We have tried to do exactly the same thing with drugs for decades with essentially the same results. Prohibitions do not work in a free society.

              I have already made my arguments to you and others about the interdependency of our Constitution’s tenets and Amendments. I will not repeat all of them now. The 2nd Amendment is linked explicitly and implicitly with the 4th and 5th and the 1st Amendment especially. When one component of our civil liberties is weakened, all are undermined.

              Finally, I will always oppose public policy that is based on fear rather than facts. The facts: Crimes of violence are way down in the last two plus decades – including crimes or events involving guns. This despite the fact that the number of guns in circulation have increased dramatically during the same period. So more guns simply does not result in more crime.

              Likewise, “long guns” of any type are used in only a tiny fraction of even those crimes that do involve guns. Two thirds of the people killed with guns in this country every year are suicides. That may be a disturbing statistic, but in most jurisdictions it is not a crime to commit suicide. Assisting suicide being more legally problematic.

              Admittedly, in an emotional fight, facts are often rejected in the heat of the moment. But facts are facts, and good public policy must be grounded in facts not feelings. That is why I will continue to fight against the curtailment of any civil liberties based solely on the premise that it will make some “feel safer.”


  14. fritz bousigschouer says:

    this is exactly the case. I had that exact case in swiss as well, they banned this and that and left and right and by 2018 the “Kampfwert” the combat efficiency there is worth way way less than say 1990. it is still higher than say in germany or sweden but never how it was like say 1990 with many swiss ready privatley with capable of war able arms and equipment and I count into that also stored food and what is needed for a survival privatley.

    in usa, with the constitution, we do play on a highest level. if we fail and fall, the whole free world is done and history. then we have a mix of problems like in europe, africa, asia and say russia and god prevent that we all have to live like that, cause I been there & had that.

    here in usa we legally can, we also can cause we have the possibilities as all is sold and many times affordable cheap, other places on earth cant in one or all regards. this as a warning to the real, true us people!

  15. SpartanDieselTech says:

    Tom appears to be from the UK, which explains all of his “beliefs”, ie, cognitive dissonance. You are arguing with a lamppost.