Interesting read. Let’s take his first.
Does anybody want to paste the content of the article? I’d like to discuss it but don’t want to give the CCN gun grabbing article another click, view, and ad revenue
Anyone that is in league with CNN, isn’t credible.
Yes, here are the first two paragraphs that clearly indicate where his opinion is leading:
No weapon has been more in the public eye in America of late than the AR-15, in large part because of its tragic role in some of this country’s deadliest shootings.
The AR-15 has the dubious distinction of being America’s most popular semi-automatic rifle. I’m more familiar with the gun than most people: I own one. And one thing I know for sure is that this weapon doesn’t belong in the hands of the average civilian.
I see no value in reading it further.
Thanks for that quote and the heads up…as Bugs Bunny would say…“What a Maroon.”
Knows more than most 'cuz he owns ONE. I found AR’s to be like potato chips, though each of mine is different from the others.
And has that attitude that he is “special”, not the average guy that should not own that rifle. He will be quite upset when he finds out that is not true. I’ve had the misfortune of meeting people like that, but seeing their comeuppance that gives one that special warmth inside.
“DC police officer Michael Fanone writes.”
I stopped reading after that.
I have lots of problems with this article, and with the author. Anyone that shows up in the annual CNN’s Heroes: All Start Tribute is at best, a shill for the leftist agenda, or worse, an active collaborator. The author is ex-LEO, but more importantly, “Michael Fanone is a CNN law enforcement analyst,” or in other words, he’s paid by CNN to prop up their opinion with the voice of authority. Despite CNN’s statement that “the views expressed here are his own,” it’s important to keep in mind that they pay him for those opinions, and would stop paying him the moment those opinions opposed the network’s liberal dogma. So, yeah, maybe a little biased?
I purchased my AR-15 because I was assigned one as part of my police duties. But officers weren’t allowed to take our department-issued weapons home. I felt it was my responsibility to become proficient with any weapon I’d been assigned, so I bought one. And I’ve spent hundreds of hours training so that I could properly use it.
As a 20 year DC LEO, I don’t doubt that he’s had hundreds of hours of training. However, the deception here, of course, is to make it seem to the average reader that an AR-15 requires an extraordinary amount of training in order to know how to use it, like it’s a very complex piece of equipment with a nearly unattainable skill set for the average civilian. Obtaining a pilot’s license requires fewer hours, and you’ll likely agree, operating an aircraft is a little more complicated than using a rifle.
Part of the following, at least, is correct. This action is indeed lacking in brains, but I want to underscore the scare tactics used. The phrase “powerful weapon” is often trotted out, yet a .308 Winchester goes as fast and has almost 3X the mass. It’s significantly more powerful. (Except from PETA), where’s the outrage?
Banning these powerful weapons from the civilian marketplace is a no-brainer, as are universal background checks. Neither move is going to solve all the gun problems that we have, but it would be a start.
How much better is this? It’s not confiscation, it’s a voluntary choice; you can choose to turn them in, or choose to go to jail:
And outlawing these AR-15s would not require confiscating them from people who already have them. Once you’ve made these weapons illegal, anyone found with one would be subject to arrest, since possession of these weapons would be a crime. I think it’s likely that you would see a lot of people opting to turn them in.
If that’s isn’t double speak, I don’t know what is.
There’s so much more in his opinion piece to pull apart, but why? We all have better things to do with our day. Still, I’ll call out the ad hominem factor – just in case some of the pro-2A arguments might start to sound logical:
Some members of the tinfoil hat brigade have come up with the reply, “We need these weapons because we want to be effective against the government if it becomes tyrannical. That’s part of our Second Amendment right.” Personally, I think that’s ludicrous, but it has become an increasingly popular justification for purchasing a semi-automatic rifle.
Yeah, you don’t need to listen to those people. You don’t need to respect their opinion. They’re loony.
Just remember, the difference between a conspiracy theory and truth is… about six months.
And what rifle would the cops have with them when they come to confiscate AR-15’s from those loons? You guessed it … the AR-15.
As an aside, ever notice how these leftist web sites like CNN, MSNBC, NPR, etc. never allow commentary? It’s just a constant barrage of leftist propaganda without rebuttal and without input. Just shoveling in the BS 24/7 and people actually believe this crap. SMH
Some of the real reasons they are not allowed to take their assigned AR home is because their armorer keeps them clean and functioning. They don’t want them to shoot their crap ammo and take a filthy AR in the field and malfunction. They may also have full auto or 3 round burst mode and they don’t want these highly trained specialists showing off at the local gun range in front of the lowly civilian crowd.
Another pompous, arrogant thug with a badge who wants to decide who gets to do the 2A. This guy is from one of the WORST agencies in America and he wants to lecture US!!! What an idiot, respectfully, of course,
Another reason to dump the NRA.
And one thing I know for sure is that this weapon doesn’t belong in the hands of the average civilian.
See, that settles it. He’s more knowledgeable than all of us.
I don’t think someone purchasing a firearm for self and family protection is an “average civilian.” BTW, “owning one” is a far cry from knowing how to correctly use and maintain one.
Offering a different take away?
Is anyone credible enough?
If we don’t use them to hunt, and can go a lifetime or two generations of one family not having to use a semi-auto rifle for self-defense.
Edited here out of respect to the group:
Why do those who purchase semi-auto rifles, do so?
Interesting to hear other firearm guardians not feel threatened by creating change. They can still hold onto other firearms, as there are different options. Of course, I’m not a fan of the biased source in the article, but admit it “food for thought” to me.
I’m biased too. Own preferences per se.
I can’t think of any other group who would benefit from more, by addressing mental health and safer social behavior, than firearm right advocates; It’s up to us to set an example by doing something about it.
So I was chatting with the local game warden one morning and decided to tease him about the ancient iron sights I saw on his rifle when I glanced in his truck. His comeback was that it had the third position on the selector…
Actually the cops would just as likely have actual assault rifles, actual m16 or m4, sbr machine gun silenced, when they come to take the title 1 semi auto
Let me just stop you right there and emond you it’s about Liberty, and Rights, or maybe some would say freedom…its not about need.
Where in the 2A does it state you are only “allowed” the RKBA if you need it.
Like the firearm list that California has. The one that does not allow newer models that have the same capacity as the older model, like a Glock? Those types of “common-sense gun control” laws we can do without, thank you.
From the Cali website:
No Generation 4 or Generation 5 Glock handguns have been approved as of: Monday, Jun 6, 2022
No Glock handguns made in the USA have been approved as of: Monday, Jun 6, 2022
Neither do I, and I do not own any rifles. So based on your logic, no one needs a rifle because I don’t own one.
Yes, that old line, “just do something…” I know, pass “Constitutional Carry”. Almost one-half the nation now has it.
What firearm guardians are you referring to, exactly?
And, maybe you haven’t figure fit out yet, but they will not stop at banning A, they will then ban B, and C, all the way through ZZ. One step at a time. We are already well into that with the NFA and certain states’ restrictions.