The Left Still Loves Guns

But they only want guns capable of killing large numbers of people quickly in the hands of the state:

Leftists are by nature not liberals, no matter what label they have adopted. Scratch a liberal, and find a Fascist.

Except the latter “liberal” needs appropriate scare quotes. Funny thing, I don’t know of any corporation or individual who murdered people by the millions in the last century.

Meanwhile, newsflash for Piers Morgan: the AR-15 is today’s musket.

[Update a while later]

Extraordinary delusions and the madness of crowds:

Lefties are fond of lecturing (and writing books, and plays, and movies) about the famously dark days of McCarthyism, where right wing Bircher paranoiacs supposedly were looking for a ‘Red under every bed.’ I suppose to a certain extent they had a point, but the sum total impact of that brief 50’s reign of terror seems to be that a couple of Hollywood writers lost screenplay deals.

Contrast that with our new age of left wing paranoia. Now that the national boogie men are Gunnies rather than Commies, there ain’t no bed, or closet, or playground safe to hide from our brave safety crusaders. No one is above suspicion, and so holy is their cause that even crayon-scrawled representations of Demon Gun must be banned. Obviously, we have to arrest children precisely because it’s For The Children. Welcome to New Salem, with the Reverend Piers Morgan as our new Cotton Mather.

It’s no coincidence that the heart of Leftism is in Massachusetts. They’re the direct descendants of the Puritans, who came seeking religious freedom for themselves, including the freedom to restrict others’ freedom.

[Bumped]

2 thoughts on “The Left Still Loves Guns

  1. Paul Milenkovic

    OK, OK, I guess I would not know a direct-impingement from a piston action if it were shown to me.

    But hasn’t the Stoner (OK, the name of the inventor, but an ironic name for the ’60s) Armalite mechanism been an unremitting disaster for our infantry soldiers and Marines?

  2. Dick Eagleson

    No. When first introduced into combat in Vietnam, the early M-16’s had a lot of jamming problems because the Army insisted on using a powder formulation significantly different than what Stoner designed the weapon to use. Ditto for lubricants. The Army was apparently bent on using up huge leftover stocks of powder and gun lube purchased during WW2 and which the Korean War had only put a dent in, but not used up. The U.S. Army fought in Korea with the same small arms used in WW2 so this stuff worked fine then.

    The metallurgy and manufacturing processes for the M-16 were quite different from those used to fabricate the Garand and M-1 carbine. So, in consequence, were the optimum powder formulations and cleaners/lubricants. In classic right way, wrong way, Army way fashion, the REMFs in swivel chairs took every opportunity to screw things up early on. All of that is very old news, though.

    The original Stoner design is hardly unimprovable. H&K and others have built uprated versions of the M-16/M-4 in recent years with superior fouling and jam resistance. The Special Ops guys often use such guns in preference to standard 16’s and 4’s, but the Army procurement brass always seem to stick with status quo. The M-16/4-series guns are that status quo now. They have have been standard Army issue for several times longer than were their Garand and M-1 carbine predecessors.

Comments are closed.