MT Republican Legislator Wants More Guns in Schools

Rep. David Howard (R-Park City) believes that school shootings in America are caused by too few, rather than too many, guns in school. He wants to know why the sign on the right isn’t posted in front of ever school in America.

On his Facebook page, Howard explains his views on gun free schools:

This is like zebra’s declaring a section of the Serengeti to be a Lion free zone! They would go out and mark the boundaries, lie down and relax. The lions on the other hand, would be rejoicing and putting out signs that would say “Defenseless Stupid Zebra’s Ahead”.

The godless liberals are forcing America’s kids to be sitting ducks. Sad!

Rep. David Howard (R-TEA Park City)Howard is backing a piece of legislation, along with other Montana Republicans, that would allow students and teachers to bring side arms to school.  This is one of several measures that the GOP believes will make for a safer society.  The other is a bill to allow concealed weapons in bars, banks, schools and state government buildings.  These were vetoed by Schweitzer last session, and will likely be vetoed again.

What Howard and company cannot come to terms with is this basic fact: that in places like Sweden, Finland, Canada, Germany, England and many other strong democracies, there is plenty of hunting and gun ownership, but virtually no school shootings and in fact barely any gun violence at all.  And no, they don’t accomplish it by arming elementary school students.  They do it through common sense regulation.  No assault weapons, no gun show loopholes where you can pay cash for a gun without any record of the transaction.  No 100-round clips of ammo.

The fun part of the upcoming legislative session will be to observe the diminished power that Gary Marbut will wield.  Marbut runs an outfit called Montana Shooting Sports Association, a group he formed to compete with the NRA which he views as too liberal an organization.  He wants guns everywhere, and is the force behind bills like the ones that Howard is pushing.  But it’s crazy stuff that even Montanans, who are gun purists, don’t really go in for.

Rep. Howard is the Chair of the House Human Services Committee of the Montana Legislature.

Here’s a screenshot of Rep. Howard’s post:





90 Comments on "MT Republican Legislator Wants More Guns in Schools"

  1. Howard’s veiws on guns in schools are just as idiotic as his posts on pot a while back.

  2. DOMAN, I presume you mean this? ~sigh~

  3. I’m not sure what the most imbecilic part of this is, but “he caught AIDS by sharing used marijuana” is certainly a contender.

  4. Yes exactly this was the worst one!

  5. Gangbangers who carry have been right all along, communities are armed camps and barricading ourselves in our homes is the new normal: whoopee.

  6. Ingemar Johansson | December 20, 2012 8:34 AM at 8:34 AM |

    Threatening signs aren’t the answer.

    We need more of these signs.

  7. Mr. Johansson’s link proves once again that when it comes to humor, the Right is completely outgunned. They might as well surrender.

    • Surrender to the unarmed, Mr. Kemmick?

      • From NRO, John Fund post.

        Quote: “I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.”

        More evidence: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.’

        • With just one single exception, when I got my ass handed to me outside O’Tooles, I’ve won every bar fight I’ve been in since I was born. I guess that means I’m invincible since we should just throw out that bad night. Give me a break.

  8. At least you know how many bar fights you won. I won’t hold my breath until that “more evidence” is backed up with a shred of documented proof. Or hell, even documented evidence. Putting a statement inside quotation marks counts as proof in Swede’s world, but not in mine.

    • Here’s something from the LP:

      Responsible gun owners can and do prevent mass shootings from occurring and escalating.
      •A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school’s vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
      •A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
      •A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
      •A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
      •A 2007 mall shooting in Salt Lake City, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
      •A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
      •A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.

      So there are cases where carrying a gun helped. Those who have concealed carry permits, do have to have training, and background checks. So why not just allow teachers with permits to carry, if they wish.

  9. Norma Duffy (@Ilikewoods) | December 20, 2012 12:01 PM at 12:01 PM |

    In the last thirty years of Mass shootings, can one of you RWNJ’s name one case where a civilian stopped a Killing spree??? No? Thats cuz there hasn’t been one. In Fact the story is told that during the Giffords shooting, one civilian had a gun, and if he was allowed to shoot which he wasn’t, he was knocked down… he was aiming to shot one of the people holding down the shooter.

    Your all in need of mental health counseling, if you think heavily armed is the answer!

    • Here’s “one” where an armed civilian prevented a greater tragedy:

      • I’ve read that report, and the armed person prevented nothing. According to the person,Nick Meli, he was in Macy’s when he heard the shots. He then got behind a pillar and “thought” the gunman saw him. Meli then said the next thing he heard was a shot, which was , apparently, the gunman shooting himself. However, the gunman went firing all the way through Macy’s and then into the food court area . From there, he went down a long hallway and down the stairs to the level below Macy’s. That is where he shot himself. Meli never got out of Macy’s. See:

        I know the gun nuts believe that this proves their idea that armed citizens could prevent mass murders, but it didn’t happen in this case.

        • Meli looked straight at the shooter from cover. The shooter saw Meli pointing his weapon at him and retreated. See the first link and video.

          Here’s a more complete story.

          Then a dangerous confrontation got worse. Nick heard the distinctive sound of a malfunction being cleared in the rifle and saw the gunman reach for another magazine. As the gunman was inserting the fresh magazine, Nick quickly backed into the Macy’s Home Store and took cover while keeping his eyes on the gunman. Despite being outgunned, Nick stayed in cover but visible to the gunman.

          Knowing he had an armed person in the mall and that this was no longer his gun-free zone, the gunman avoided the Macy’s Home Store and ended his rampage by fleeing to a service corridor and into the stairwell to the lower level. He then took his life, unbeknownst to everyone in the mall…

          No recognition is exactly what Nick would like. He has eschewed interviews and plans to continue doing so simply because he did what he felt he had to. Nick doesn’t feel he is a hero so Ashley gets the final word:

          “What Nick did and the actions he took saved lives. Whether he shot or not, he changed the situation and he is the reason nobody else was shot”

          I tend to believe Ashley’s eyewitness account over your speculation.

          • It’s not my speculation. If you had watched the link, you wouls know that what I stated was the “Official ” version as set forth by the Sheriff’s office. Of course, I don’t know what the killer saw or didn’t see and neither do you or Meli. But, we do know that the shooter went beyond Meli, into the food court where he continued to shoot and then down a hallway and down a stairway. Meli did not follow him. So to say that Meli had anything to do with stopping the gunman is sheer fantasy and wishful speculation. I know that you and your ilk wish it were so and that if you just believe it hard enough, it must have happened the way you hoped. If facts don’t match your belief, just ignore facts.

          • By the way, Craig, you say you believe Ashley’s eyewitness account that Nick saved lives. apparently you didn’t read the story to which you linked. She was hiding in a bathroom:
            Casey got to her feet and unlocked and opened the half door to get behind the store counter. She then told the others, “follow me”. In the back area of the jewelry store the girls found a closet sized bathroom and Ashley, Noah, and Casey crammed in, along with four other people who had been trapped in the open. Once in the relative safety of the bathroom one of the women, a Morgan Jewelers employee, asked Casey why Nick had a gun. Casey’s answer? ”He works for a security company. He’s one of the good guys”.

            In other words, Ashley don’t know sh*t. But, good on ya for relying upon that persuasive “eyewitness” account.

            • Rich, Ashley may not have personally seen the face-to-face confrontation. Seems at this point only two people did, Meli and the shooter. However, Ashley certainly had conversation immediately with Meli after the fact as Meli returned to her to wait for the police. She certainly is a witness to the sounds, sights, and fear of the attack. If she believes that Meli saved others from what she saw, heard, experienced and told by Meli of his showdown with the shooter, why do you insist otherwise?

  10. And one does wonder what Swede’s expert would make of the Fort Hood shooting, in which 13 people were killed and 39 wounded. He’d probably say it’s not a “public shooting” so it doesn’t count. In other words, you manipulate the facts of every incident until you’ve got “proof” your dingbat theories are “right.”

  11. Here’s my reply to Gary Marbut”s (well known gun fetishist) in the Missoulian:

  12. I’m sick of hearing from (R)’s that this is only a mental health issue and banning weapons won’t accomplish anything, while at the same time they are slashing mental health and education budgets.

  13. A few questions come to mind here:

    Why doesn’t David Howard have to explain his position in the press?

    Why don’t any of the other legislators proposing bills like this in Montana?

    Why is every blog except Mt Streetfighter weighing in on this? Is it because Max Baucus has the wrong position here or is afraid to say what his position is?

  14. Better add Champ Edmunds to this

  15. Max and Tester believe in the 2nd amendment like the devil believes in God.

  16. The founders didn’t anticipate military machine-guns in the hands of the citizenry, and why the amendment says to ‘BEAR’ arms, which means small-arms, not CANNONS, a weapon of mass destruction like an AR-15. All able-bodied – and white – citizens were EXPECTED to have a muzzle-loading (remember, a TRAINED militiaman could probably load and fire two rounds in a minute, while British regulars could fire perhaps three rounds UNDER pressure) so they would report to the village commons as part of a larger ‘well-regulated’ militia that might have to be called upon to
    counter a STANDING army under an over-reaching federal authority or foreign prince. THAT is the intent of the 2nd Amendment, which still allows citizens to protect hearth and home against domestic assaults and I remind all the first TWO parts of the Constitution’s Preamble address say ESTABLISH JUSTICE (Law) and INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY (Order).

  17. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | December 22, 2012 11:00 AM at 11:00 AM |

    What Would Jesus Carry? THIS! Right, Sonju? Because seriously, if’n you gotta waste a zombie for the Lord, you must do it right! Wooden stakes as just so passe. MODERN Jesus Jumpers and Bible Thumpers and inbreds use hight tech! Ya just never know when you gotta waste a dude for JAYSUS!

    • Once upon a time you who wrote the following:

      With the current violation of the Posse Comitatus, I plan to keep my guns REGARDLESS of what happens in Congress. You see, when the government breaks the law, there IS no law. When the government ignores the law, I’ll simply ignore the law too. Bushie is planning to station U.S. military troops in this country with the specific purpose of putting down any civil unrest. Well, that’s against the law. Whach’ya’gonna’do when the come for YOU? I know what I’m gonna do.

      It’s all about parity. The citizens of this country have the absolute RIGHT to defend themselves against their own government should that become necessary. But I would go further. Not just the right, but the duty. THAT’S why we need our guns. When the government starts shooting at us for our own good, all bets are off. I pity the poor fellas in uniform that are “just following orders”. Not a good idea to follow illegal orders in THIS country. That just might get you killed.

      Congress needs to stop this nonsense immediately. NO army troops can be allowed for law enforcement in this country. PERIOD! If Congress won’t stop it, the armed citizens of the country will via the second amendment.
      … I don’t think it’s “nuts” at all to maintain that guns in the hands of ordinary citizens is a wonderful system of checks and balances against abuses by our nation’s own military and government. Why is it nuts specifically? Are you a trained member of the military? The notion that the military is invulnerable is simply mistaken. I think that it’s maybe YOU who is nuts for not wanting an armed citizenry. I deal with “gun nuts” all the time, and they are some of the most responsible citizens I know. They’re good, honest, decent people.

      • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | December 22, 2012 11:58 AM at 11:58 AM |

        And stand by all that is written above. (actually, some pretty good stuff. are you sure I wrote all that?)

        But you see, what I’m not is a hypocrite like Sonju. I do not CLAIM to be a follower of Jesus who auctions off assualt weapons. For you see, if I were TRULY a follower of Jesus Christ the Lord, I would surrender myself fully to His will, and accept His will, for His will be done! I would NOT be able to harm another. God is love, and love conquers all. I’m not THERE yet. And I don’t claim to be, like the holy roller gun toters.

        And really, what IS the Lord’s Prayer other than simplicity. Eat every day, try to get along, and to HELL with the rest, for it just don’t matter! God’s in control! Oh and try to avoid evil! Selling ASSUALT WEAPONS in the name of the Lord is evil in my book.

        I actually love that prayer.

  18. Yes, you wrote it. Do you want the link or do you want to let it rest? Your choice. There’s much more similar stuff as well.

    There is noting more meaningless in any gun constriction debate than the word “assault.” Any implement applied to another with the attention to inflict harm is an assault weapon. As you know the bolt action Remington 700 has a long history of military and law enforcement use to “assault” bad guys. As to your knock on Nemo Arms, they don’t make bread pans. Their contribution to a school fund raiser had to meet legal requirements including the winner’s legal status to receive the prize. As to your religious context, the preferred route is to turn the other cheek, but it is not a sin or otherwise proscribed behavior to defend oneself or others, or take a firearm to the field to hunt as your video suggests. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

    • so then why, craig, are there none of these shootings in other countries, where violent video games are played and guns are available for hunting?

    • Interesting observation, Craig. But maybe you could clear something up for us. What do you suppose the “AR” in AR15 stands for? Y’think maybe that form follows function, and not the other way around? (A baseball bat isn’t an “assault weapon” just because you hit someone with it.)

      • Compare a civilian legal AR15 with an M16 or M4. Which two are the real “assault” weapons that the military takes into battle? Now reflect on the military bolt action Remington 700 versus the civilian models. Little harder here. Do you suggest outlawing bull barrels too or just all Remington 700’s?

        • False dilemma, Craig. I don’t suggest outlawing anything. But you’re still avoiding. The AR stands for “Assault Rifle”. The M stands for “Military” (issue). Just because one might have select fire and the other is only semi-automatic, does not change the nature of it’s form for use. I’ve argued at length with my brother about this, but it is simple to me. You can’t say that one is “more” of an assault rifle when the very action itself is named “assault rifle” even for civilian use.

          • Rob, if it were called a Popsicle it wouldn’t change its functional capability. Labels are meaningless. Kenneth is right.

            • You are speciously correct, Craig, but then we wouldn’t be discussing the word “assault” at all. We’d be discussing control of popsicles. We’d also be living in fantasy land where red means tree. But we’re not, because “assault” has a specific meaning that even the manufacturers apply to their own product. You’re waffling, Craig. “Labels” may be meaningless, but English words are not.

              • OK, then lets’ discuss the HK416. Both the civilian legal and military variants. The civilian version is the AR15 like model. Which is the assault weapon? As you know HK stands for Heckler & Koch.

                • “FYI, unless he received a Dishonorable discharged, he is not an “Ex-Marine.”” Thousands have been disenfranchised, yet only the few, the proud, can kill without remorse.

                • Craig, get to the point. Calling something an assault weapon is a statement of it’s designed purpose. One does not use a snub .38 as a hunting weapon. That’s why it’s not called a ‘hunting rifle’. One does not use a smoked ham as a baseball bat. That’s why it’s not called a baseball bat. But when the manufacturers themselves state a purpose of design as ‘assault’, then the word becomes pretty damned important to consider in it’s purpose, right? The HK416 shares all characteristics of form and function with AR’s. What do you think we should call it? A belly gun?

          • AR stands for Armalite, where designer Eugene Stoner worked before the firm was sold to Colt. There are some differences between the weapons — for example, the M16 can safely fire both the 5.56mm NATO cartridge and the .223 Remington, while the AR15 probably shouldn’t be used with the NATO ammunition; and the M16 offers both semi-automatic and burst or fully automatic firing modes, while the AR15 is semi-automatic only (unless modified; illegal, but within the skill of a good gunsmith) — but there are a lot of similarities, too. The civilian AR15 is a much better battle weapon than, say, the M1 Garand.

            Assault rifle is a rather loose term that describes a fast firing weapon suitable for military use. The M16 is more suitable for military use than the AR15, but the AR15 is still suitable for military use and a formidable weapon in its own right. In the hands of a competent shooter, it delivers a withering rate of fire that I think is wholly unnecessary for civilian needs. The same is true for civilian semi-automatic knock-offs of the AK47.

            What need is there for civilians to own semi-automatic long guns with 30-round clips? What useful purpose is served by 30-round clips instead of 6-round clips? Those questions are at the heart of the debate, which can be conducted, if one wishes, without ever using the term “assault rife.”

            • Defense against the homos Ann Richards sent to seize yer guns, of course, James.

            • James, once again, you are a voice of calm reason. There was quite a discussion in the comments here: Matthew Carberry vs. Waldo Emerson-Jones. Much to think about.

            • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | December 22, 2012 6:32 PM at 6:32 PM |

              James, the one we dog handlers carried in Nam was called a CAR 15, for the Colt Automatic Rifle. It was just a tool, a very effective tool. I used to marvel that that much firepower could come out of such a small weapon.

              I don’t know what all these fancy new guns are called. I’m not much into assualt rifles. We (Rangers) have enough of those stored for any contigencies that might arise, but other than that, I’ve got nothing to do with them. Ban’em for all I care.


              • Larry, it won’t stop with the semi-auto rifles with clips. Your pistols are in play too. Back in 1996 Charles Krauthammer wrote the following:

                “Disarm the Citizenry. But not yet. ” Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996

                In an election year you expect Washington to be full of phony arguments. But even a cynic must marvel at the all-round phoniness of the debate over repeal of the assault weapons ban. Both sides are blowing smoke.

                The claim of the advocates that banning these 19 types of “assault weapons” will reduce the crime rate is laughable. (The term itself is priceless: What are all the other guns in America’s home arsenal? Encounter weapons? Crime-enabling devices?) Dozens of other weapons, the functional equivalent of these “assault weapons,” were left off the list and are perfect substitutes for anyone bent on mayhem.

                On the other side you have Rep. Gerald Solomon (R-N.Y.) demanding in trembling fury that the ban be repealed because his wife, alone in upstate New York, needs protection. Well, okay. But must it be an AK-47? Does, say, a .44 magnum — easier to carry, by the way — not suffice for issuing a credible, “Go ahead, make my day”?

                In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea, though for reasons its proponents dare not enunciate. I am not up for reelection. So let me elaborate the real logic of the ban:

                It is simply crazy for a country as modern, industrial, advanced and now crowded as the United States to carry on its frontier infatuation with guns. Yes, we are a young country, but the frontier has been closed for 100 years. In 1992, there were 13,220 handgun murders in the United States. Canada (an equally young country, one might note) had 128; Britain, 33.

                Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquillity of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.

                Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic — purely symbolic — move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. Its purpose is to spark debate, highlight the issue, make the case that the arms race between criminals and citizens is as dangerous as it is pointless.

                De-escalation begins with a change in mentality. And that change in mentality starts with the symbolic yielding of certain types of weapons. The real steps, like the banning of handguns, will never occur unless this one is taken first, and even then not for decades.

                What needs to happen before this change in mentality can occur? What must occur first — and this is where liberals are fighting the gun control issue from the wrong end — is a decrease in crime. So long as crime is ubiquitous, so long as Americans cannot entrust their personal safety to the authorities, they will never agree to disarm. There will be no gun control before there is real crime control.

                True, part of the reason for the high crime rate is the ubiquity of guns — which makes the argument circular and a solution seem impossible. But gun control advocates ignore other, egregious encouragements to crime at their peril. The lack of swift and certain retribution, for example. Judges like Harold Baer in New York, for whom four men loading $4 million worth of drugs into the trunk of a car at 5 in the morning, then running away from police, is insufficient cause for a search. Judges who need the president himself to yell and scream and threaten before reversing a decision to let serious criminality go unprosecuted.

                In the United States, 4 (!) percent of all robberies result in time served. Tell your stickup man, “You can go to jail for this,” and he can correctly respond, “25 to 1 says I don’t.” So long as both the law-abiding population and the criminal classes doubt that serious crime leads to serious punishment, attempts at serious gun control will prove futile.

                Yes, Sarah Brady is doing God’s work. Yes, in the end America must follow the way of other democracies and disarm. But there is not the slightest chance that it will occur until liberals join in the other fights to reduce the incidence of and increase the penalties for crime. Only then will there be a public receptive to the idea of real gun control. The passionate resistance to even the phony gun control of the assault weapons ban shows how far we have to go.

                Note what this Jew says about crime and perception of prevalence. Keep that in mind as ZOG and the corporate media keeps repeating, as the economy gets worse and worse and the country grows browner and browner and contrary to everything you intuitively know and personally experience, that crime is miraculously decreasing in the US.

                • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | December 22, 2012 8:01 PM at 8:01 PM |

                  I understand. If you’ll notice, I have long since parted company with my liberal pals except to fire a shot or two as devil’s advocate. I do not believe in gun control. I believe in parity for everyone.

                  Gun violence is simply a reflection of ALL problems of society writ emotionally large. That’s all.

                  Overpopulation, overcrowding, economic inequality, poor education, drugs, lack of mental health care, lack of health care, racism, etc. Take your pick. It’s only going to get worse. That’s one reason I keep my guns.

                  • I don’t understand when you wrote: ” Ban’em for all I care.”

                    Back in 2009 when the ban proposal came up then Tester said, “It’s baloney.” In the discussion that followed you said,

                    Can’t we just drop all the ban talk now? Even the TALK ALONE will have some very, very serious repercussions come election time, and well they should. It’s a non-issue in search of politicians who will wear signs on their backs that say ‘kick my ass, PUHlease’!

                • 1996 was 16 years ago, the Assault Weapons ban came and went, and none of the things Krauthammer predicted came to pass. He was wrong – Americans will not accept being disarmed merely because we accept limits on certain kinds of weapons.

                  • PW, he wrote: “Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.”

                    It’s only 2012, just 16 years later. Obama has been a ban advocate of so called “assault weapons” for longer than that. He is making it a top priority of his next term.

                  • We banned assault weapons, we let the ban expire. Say we ban them again – I fail to see that we are actually any closer to full disarmament than we were before. Especially since in the meantime the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment restricts State and municipal governments as well as the Federal Government. If anything, gun rights are better defined and guaranteed now than in 1996.

            • Small quibble, James, but stating the AR stands for ARmalite isn’t true. In pure marketing genius, it was meant to refer to either. Stoner preferred to call it the ARM model. Over the last week, I’ve encountered far too many people who wish to 1) show off their gun smarts, or 2) demean the use of the term “assault rifle” who suddenly are very specific about what the AR *really* stands for to minimize the fact that these weapons are meant to do max kill with greatest efficiency.

              • Please cite your authorities.

                • A curious request when you didn’t cite yours.

                  James, I’m not interested in arguing this with you. You can pull up multiple sites that say that AR stands for Armalite. My brother would say the same, and he wouldn’t be any more correct. It’s a distinction of convenience, unless some other feeling is at stake. I don’t care. (I’ve read an interview with Stoner where he stated specifically that he wanted to call it ARM.) What seems to matter to you at this point is that you be seen as ‘correct’. You are, and you aren’t. All laud to James, and aren’t I sorry for not agreeing with you …

                  • I’m not interested in being seen as correct, but I am interested in being correct, an interest most of us share. My sources included Chivers’ recent book on the history of the Kalashnikov, and my memory from the sixties, when M-16s were jamming in the jungle and there were many stateside stories on the weapon’s origins.

                    But your point that AR can also stand for assault rifle is well taken — AR = assault rifle certainly is a common usage of the abbreviation. I agree that AR has more than one meaning.

                    In my post I referred to long guns. That mistake excluded semi-automatic versions of machine pistols (think Uzi), a weapon suited for close quarters combat and favored by gangsters.

                    • Apologies for the snippy response.

                      Essentially what Craig was calling for was that we use ‘politically correct’ verbiage so as not to offend the delicate feelings of gun owners. It is an argument I’ve had too many times to retain patience with it. Just because I use my AK as a happy-fun-time-toy doesn’t change the nature of the design, or it’s efficiency of purpose. It is an assault rifle, and there is no political correct way to change that fact with words.

                      Ultimately, the argument against objectionable terminology is self-defeating for the very reason you note. What makes an “assault weapon” such a thing is not the scary look of it (another argument I have no patience for), it’s not the bells and whistles that enhance it’s native efficiency like mil-spec scopes or flash suppressors. It’s the action and capacity. If those who object to the word ‘assault’ want to redefine these arms in a ‘less objectionable manner’ then what we’re really talking about are simply semi-automatics in general. I don’t really think they want to have that discussion, either.

              • Just curious, what sort of fantasy description do you assign to “AR” in the AR-17 shotgun or the AR-24 handgun built by Armalite?

                • Just curious, what did you have to say about “AR = Armalite” before James enabled your argument? Nothing? That’s about what I thought. Congratulations, Craig. You’ve trolled James into your ego driven crap, even though I agree with you vastly more than he ever has or will. The both of you want to be ‘right’ vastly more than you care about solving any problem. So don’t. ~golf clap~ for you both.

        • And for the record, bull barrels are available on civilian models of the Rem 700, or as after market, just as are tripods, muzzle breaks, mil-spec scopes …

          You know what isn’t different between the military issue Remington 700 and the civilian issue? The action. You know what is different between an assault rifle, a Derringer, a knife and a canned ham? One allows you to hit the target(s) a helluva lot more and faster than the other three, even if those those targets are children. That’s why the manufacturers themselves designate them as “assault rifles”, wouldn’t you agree?


    Anybody who has served in the Guard and active military should know this, as the MILITIA was an essential part of the founders philosophy as a counter-weight to a STANDING ARMY. After establishing Justice, Insure DOMESTIC tranquility was right before the COMMON DEFENSE, and a white male was responsible as a citizen to maintain a firearm to report for militia duty and to protect hearth and home as well against Indian insurrections primarily on the frontiers.

Comments are closed.