Are "black guns" needed more now

This happens every 4 years

Until the AWB nobody wanted an AR or AK. I turned 18 during it. When it ended, there were only a handful of AR builders. COLT, of course. Olympic. Bushmaster. If not for the ban I don't think they would be near as popular as now.

357smallbore said:

Just wondering if the "black guns" aka. assault weapons. Now more than ever is it best to hang on to them. I've seen where people have bought all they can from buying the gun to literally buying dozens of hi cap magazines.
I've got a friend that just paid $650 for steel .223 ammo for 1k and another buddy that paid $800 for Lake City brass .223. for 1k
The election is over, no winner decided. Is this driving the narrative to own

Click to expand...

You would do best not to use the uninformed masses terms for AR15's, they are not "assault weapons," and they are not "hi cap magazines". They are "AR15's or AR's" and "standard capacity magazines". Quit supporting their false narrative about inanimate objects, its ridiculous and a very real tool used to subvert our freedom given to us by the 2A. This is not me being nitpicky, so don't take it as such, its just unfortunate when gun owners start using verbiage established by those that wish to disarm the American people.

And yes, like was said by @HB this happens every 4 years and especially on this year's tumultuous election cycle.

My take as a long time gun owner.

I think folks should be able to buy, own and stockpile whatever the hell they see fit in terms of what they see as possible defensive needs.

Now realistically do I think anybody will ever burn a combat load of ammo through an AR15 in any situation this side of literal warfare.....no.

I think having ANY firearm you are capable of using and a couple or three boxes of appropriate ammo would take anybody through even the most dire real world situation.

That said a semi automatic, mag fed rifle allows for the easiest use by the widest subset of folks and makes a ton of sense for self defense.

If you are somebody who wants one then now is probably the time to jump on it. If you are the kind of person who doesn’t want one and just think there is a perceived need to get into combat with 100 determined rioters I think you would be fine with whatever is on your comfort zone (12 gauge, bolt gun, lever, Pistol, revolver etc. etc. etc.) in the real world. The likely hood of a pitched batted with NUMEROUS DEVOTED individuals is pretty low as generally speaking most folks realize they left the iron on as soon as bullets start flying and decide they need to get home to turn it off like NOW!

Are there political reasons to stock up? Yep.
Are they fun and practical firearms? Double Yep.
Are you going to war tomorrow and going to burn through 8 or 9 mags? Probably not.

It’s also important to understand that anything this side of Mad Max you will still be held to some kind of rule of law. Even if the rule of law goes out the window for a short period of time, you will eventually have to attest for your actions and attesting to dumping 200 rounds is going to be difficult to do to say the least.

Just my take.

If the subtext is that Biden will come for your gun, that seems not possible as the Senate and Scotus would seem to block such bans. It could be that state bans will increase unless Scotus acts.

If a ban that did not allow you to keep them, as discussed many times, a large stock of them buried in your basement, lot, etc. are useless for any use except the apocalypse.

If you buy some extremely expensive things, you will be stuck with them in a year or two when the market economy operates.

As far as civil war preparations and/or announcing how YOU will break a law - don't go there. That's a hint.

It's the 'Banned in Boston' syndrome.
Everyone had to find out what the fuss was all about.
Then, when the press and the politicians started dreaming up all of those scary names for these firearms, everyone had to check them out or be uncool... .

The terminology has evolved. Knowledgeable antigunners have taken to heart the misue of the term assault. The term used is military style semi automatic guns. This mentions how they look like the fully auto guns and makes clear that they are not fully auto. However, correcting the usage has absolutely no power in winning the debate to keep them. The correction on fully auto vs. semi is useful. That is a double edged sword, however, I recall and Guns and Ammo video with two old farts carrying on about a M4 being fully auto, with the implicit weapon of war mantra, while a semi was a Modern Sporting Rifle and thus nice as a sporting toy. Now, if you go to a carbine match and see how fast a skilled shooter can handle a semi and you were prone to be scared of guns, you would be very scared of the semi gun also. So I can shoot a carbine match and be only 3 points down on 50 humanoid targets with a semi gun- why that is obviously a toy or sporting gun and absolutely safe for all! No one will buy that. The guns have to be protected for their core 2nd Amendment reasons to exist. Don't stress the term correction except in a polite manner.

A modern sporting military style semiauto evil black high capacity assault rifle - OK.

Note: this is not meant to be ridicule, only intended to remind each other to remember that the media's objectives are to boost ratings and sway various opinions. It is extremely sophisticated and quite effective------we should never forget that
* fear breeds revenue shifts, and consumer spending; enough mags to take an insurgent house in Ramadi Iraq etc..
** Whose houses in the US have actually Been attacked due to organized urban chaos? ....few, about zero ------). Suburban chaos in Residential Areas?---Zero. They have partly won--in a psychological sense.

The anti-gunners in Wash. DC realize that the more insidious, subtle accumulations of anti-gun victories have been won in state governments.

Somehow it is impossible for me to see a repeat of the embattled streets of Vienna and Berlin in the 1920s. Images are on Google. Should I buy a wheeled 37 mm cannon like they used in Vienna?
Maybe my paranoia needs to be enhanced, to become fashionable..

But then........ limiting anxiety about graphic television images from Portland/Seattle during the video 'barrage' last spring/summer, which were in very specific areas of (primarily) Two downtowns. Why fixate on anything similar?

357smallbore said:

aka. assault weapons

Click to expand...

Definitions, courtesy of The Oxford Dictionary:
Assault (noun): the crime of attacking somebody physically
Weapon (noun): an object such as a knife, gun, bomb, etc. that is used for fighting or attacking somebody

Implying that an inanimate object is primarily or regularly used or intended for committing violent crime while in reality it isn't, by a huge statistical margin indicating the polar opposite, is, well:
Propaganda (noun): ideas or statements that may be false or present only one side of an argument that are used in order to gain support for political leader, party, etc.

In any case, hanging on to a firearm is always a good idea, particularly when there's political pressure stating that you shouldn't or eventually couldn't.

GEM said:

The correction on fully auto vs. semi is useful.

Click to expand...

Of course, we do have the unfortunate video of a retired US Army Lt General being interviewed by cable news about the AR and using the term, "full semi-automatic."
CNN Goes Fully Semi Automatic

Col. Jeff Cooper wrote words to the effect that it is difficult to tyrannize good men, who have rifles. I believe myself to be a good person, so, I should have a rifle. No?

I want this rifle to be rugged, and able to withstand exposure to weather. Wood can be made weather-resistant, but synthetic materials can be weather-resistant while being light in weight. Blued steel is not the best finish for withstanding prolonged moisture. Black is not the only color choice, but it works.

The Second Amendment suggests that every able-bodied man should possess a military-grade rifle. Looking into the background of the “militia” definition, it appears that every able-bodied man could be considered eligible for militia duty. Look at the example of why Imperial Japan knew that invasion of the USA would be a daunting task, as there would be a “rifle behind every blade of grass.”

Hmm, maybe we should say “American Heritage Rifle.”

On a practical level, if a gang of miscreants were to cause a mass-casualty incident, that were to require the immediate attention of every available on-duty police officer, in our quite small municipality, well, those courageous officers could, themselves, become casualties. One IED could neutralize every on-duty officer. Whether or not I see myself as being obligated to “take action,” well, I would want to be able to be a rifleman, behind one of those blades of grass, a hard target, rather than an easy victim.

FWIW, I am retired, now, but once upon a time, I worked for a big-city PD, and, shortly after the 11 September 2001 attacks, was trained to be part of the patrol rifle program, specifically with an AR15. It seems a shame to let a skill or ability go to waste.

I dont think I understand youre question. Why would we want to hang on to them now more than ever concerning an election not yet decided?

Selling a firearm now, especially those that are in the bullseye of antis for lots of money will get you called a scalper or such. The horse is out of the barn and over the horizon with regards to buying an AR just now. Things should calm down in a year or so unless some idiot acts up. Then learn that you buy cheap and stack deep to avoid this type of money drain. Buy what you can afford of what you think might be banned. Think stripped lower and large cap mags. Then flesh out the rest as you can afford to do it. I ate a lot of peanut butter sandwitches and mac,n cheese to get things I wanted. YMMV

Ignition Override said:

Should I buy a wheeled 37 mm cannon like they used in Vienna?

Click to expand...

Vienna must have better streets than my blue ridge mountains. I can bottom out my Rubicon so I know you can't drag a cannon through our streets with a team of belgians. I have a bunch of old double trees in my barns ill loan you to try. Lol.

Rexster said:

Black is not the only color choice, but it works.

Click to expand...

AR style rifles respond particularly well to krylon too.

FROGO207 said:

I ate a lot of peanut butter sandwitches and mac,n cheese

Click to expand...

YOU GOT PEANUT BUTTER. Dang it man. When my wife was still in college it was just mac and cheese and tuna on crackers....and kool-aid

On special events we had hamburger helper. Potatoes were always plentiful. So was beef but the cows didn't like to see us coming. Along with all other garden grown food.

Rexster said:

Col. Jeff Cooper wrote words to the effect that it is difficult to tyrannize good men, who have rifles. I believe myself to be a good person, so, I should have a rifle. No?

I want this rifle to be rugged, and able to withstand exposure to weather. Wood can be made weather-resistant, but synthetic materials can be weather-resistant while being light in weight. Blued steel is not the best finish for withstanding prolonged moisture. Black is not the only color choice, but it works.

The Second Amendment suggests that every able-bodied man should possess a military-grade rifle. Looking into the background of the “militia” definition, it appears that every able-bodied man could be considered eligible for militia duty. Look at the example of why Imperial Japan knew that invasion of the USA would be a daunting task, as there would be a “rifle behind every blade of grass.”

Hmm, maybe we should say “American Heritage Rifle.”

On a practical level, if a gang of miscreants were to cause a mass-casualty incident, that were to require the immediate attention of every available on-duty police officer, in our quite small municipality, well, those courageous officers could, themselves, become casualties. One IED could neutralize every on-duty officer. Whether or not I see myself as being obligated to “take action,” well, I would want to be able to be a rifleman, behind one of those blades of grass, a hard target, rather than an easy victim.

FWIW, I am retired, now, but once upon a time, I worked for a big-city PD, and, shortly after the 11 September 2001 attacks, was trained to be part of the patrol rifle program, specifically with an AR15. It seems a shame to let a skill or ability go to waste.

Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment says a well regulated militia. Meaning, these (white) men were drilled and trained in the use of their arms, in support of government. It was never a blanket provision for the ownership and carry of any firearm you liked, just because. Your state usually took care of that. A number of states are quite specific in their protections of the right to own guns for sporting purposes, defense and other lawful purposes. NV, for example, has its right to arms and its militia provisions in completely separate sections. They have nothing to do with each other. Virginia, has a slightly more specific interpretation, but the right to own guns is clearly tied to the service in state militias.

and there is very little to show that Imperial Japanese Navy Admiral Yamamoto, ever actually made that statement about a rifle behind every blade of grass. Imperial Japan knew the invasion of the west coast of the USA would be daunting because, logistically, you're not going to get close. They didn't have the capability to make it across the Pacific and mount such an offensive. The only reason the USA could do it, is because we bought those Pacific islands with blood. Any trip from Japan to California is a one-way trip, because you can't refuel to get home.
Oh, and you have the entire US Pacific Fleet, the US Army Air Corps, and the US Army and USMC standing there waiting for you when you get close. Imperial Japan was not worried about grandpas deer rifle, they were worried about Marines with machine guns.

Ivy Mike said:

The 2nd Amendment says a well regulated militia. Meaning, these (white) men were drilled and trained in the use of their arms, in support of government. It was never a blanket provision for the ownership and carry of any firearm you liked, just because. Your state usually took care of that. A number of states are quite specific in their protections of the right to own guns for sporting purposes, defense and other lawful purposes. NV, for example, has its right to arms and its militia provisions in completely separate sections. They have nothing to do with each other. Virginia, has a slightly more specific interpretation, but the right to own guns is clearly tied to the service in state militias.

Click to expand...

The men who fired upon the redcoats, during their retreat along the route from Concord to Boston, were not, necessarily, official, well-regulated, or what we would call “militia.” Today, we call them patriots, regardless of their status before the shot heard ‘round the world.

When the Second Amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, even the SCOTUS has held that an individual right was being described. (Heller, IIRC.) I would argue that in the context of the time that the Constitution was being formed, “arms” meant long guns fully as much as pistols, if not more so.

In the historic context, let’s remember that in times of national emergency, government leaders often had to “raise an army.” On occasion, this occurred after the professional army, and/or the organized militia, had already been defeated, or otherwise been unable to prevail.

Another part of the historic context was the English law, as established by one of those guys named “Henry,” that all boys and men train in the use of the longbow. Long Bow. Not just the militia, or the palace guards. All.

Ivy Mike said:

and there is very little to show that Imperial Japanese Navy Admiral Yamamoto, ever actually made that statement about a rifle behind every blade of grass. Imperial Japan knew the invasion of the west coast of the USA would be daunting because, logistically, you're not going to get close. They didn't have the capability to make it across the Pacific and mount such an offensive. The only reason the USA could do it, is because we bought those Pacific islands with blood. Any trip from Japan to California is a one-way trip, because you can't refuel to get home.
Oh, and you have the entire US Pacific Fleet, the US Army Air Corps, and the US Army and USMC standing there waiting for you when you get close. Imperial Japan was not worried about grandpas deer rifle, they were worried about Marines with machine guns.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am aware that the quote, attributed to Yamamoto, might be apocryphal. I doubt that the mainland US west coast would have been a realistic target, but let’s not forget Alaska. Had things worked differently, at the Battle of Midway, one might wonder if the Japanese might have have wanted to island-hop further up the Aleutian chain. Or, if Britain had fallen, a UK surrender might have resulted in some Japanese adventurism in Canada’s islands, right on our PNW doorstep.

Good point about Japan. Gun folks really need to stop saying that!!
The Aleutians were a diversion that failed. The Japanese wanted to have a major fleet decisive battle which would convince us to leave them alone in Asia. This is documented superbly in many sources.
They were really interested in fighting Russia.

I would not say that the men who fought in the American Revolution were well trained. Especially not at the beginning. Washington and Von Steuben had a hell of a time getting them into any semblance of a military fighting unit.

Yes you should buy an AR, the reality is its a numbers game, always was and always will be. The more people that own them and the more that exist the harder it is to ban them. Anything in common use is hard to take away, so the more people that own ARs the more normal they seem.

Ivy Mike said:

The 2nd Amendment says a well regulated militia. Meaning, these (white) men were drilled and trained in the use of their arms, in support of government. It was never a blanket provision for the ownership and carry of any firearm you liked, just because. Your state usually took care of that. A number of states are quite specific in their protections of the right to own guns for sporting purposes, defense and other lawful purposes. NV, for example, has its right to arms and its militia provisions in completely separate sections. They have nothing to do with each other. Virginia, has a slightly more specific interpretation, but the right to own guns is clearly tied to the service in state militias.

and there is very little to show that Imperial Japanese Navy Admiral Yamamoto, ever actually made that statement about a rifle behind every blade of grass. Imperial Japan knew the invasion of the west coast of the USA would be daunting because, logistically, you're not going to get close. They didn't have the capability to make it across the Pacific and mount such an offensive. The only reason the USA could do it, is because we bought those Pacific islands with blood. Any trip from Japan to California is a one-way trip, because you can't refuel to get home.
Oh, and you have the entire US Pacific Fleet, the US Army Air Corps, and the US Army and USMC standing there waiting for you when you get close. Imperial Japan was not worried about grandpas deer rifle, they were worried about Marines with machine guns.

Click to expand...

The second amendment states that the inherent right to "keep and bear arms (maintain possession of and carry) shall not be infringed ." The word "infringe" means 1.) To intrude into, or 2.) To diminish. It actually was, and is a "blanket for the ownership of any weapon you like." That's because trying to prevent such ownership would, by definition, violate the "shall not be infringed" aspect. First, the govt. Must intrude into a unalienable right, and through ban or confiscation, diminish said right.

As for Yamamoto's statement regarding not being able to invade America due to the mass ownership of guns, Yamamoto could never have made any such statement as he was killed when an airplane he was in was shot down by a flight of American P-38 fighter planes. Such a statement seems appropriate for a Japanese officer to make to an American post war but no one has ever vetted it and most people think it is a myth.

The Japanese never planned any invasion of America; their strategists believed America a corrupt and indolent country, the Pearl Harbor attack would cause a brief war, but we would tire and sue for peace soon. They were pathetically wrong. Admiral Yamamoto had studied at Yale and Harvard and knew America better, and warned his govt, but they did not listen.

I dont know, but i see pump shotguns and 1911s are long gone. not sure either of those falls into your grouping of black guns. seems folks are buying anything they can find and afford.

only guns i see consistently available are the s&w stuff which im no fan of and high end specialty stuff. rest is hit and miss and moves fast.

This run is not sustainable. It should run out of steam very soon.