I'm not the NRA

I warned you. There might be political posts. This blog is primarily about fly fishing, and I do a hunting story every once in a while. I am departing from that policy this time to comment on what I believe is either a case of mass insanity, or recognition that we live in a society filled with several million sociopaths who lack any empathy. I am talking about Newtown, CT, and the incident where a crazy asshole massacred 26 children and teachers with a .223 Bushmaster assault rifle and the pathetic debate about assault rifles.  I have been following the aftermath of this, and I have been carefully reading a lot of internet comments on the news stories as well as opinions in the hunting mags. Any asshole can post a comment on anything, and all of them did. Ninety percent of the comments seem to be coming from the 4 million NRA members who seem to have learned nothing from this.

But before we get into that, have been around firearms since age 6, hunt over 30 days a year, and my gun collection is bigger than yours. My first memory is holding a flintlock, one of my earliest is holding up a pheasant as my Grandfather dressed it. I have a gunsmith bench, and recently did some trigger jobs, scope mounting, and stock refinishing. There is a reloading press, two boresighters, a Tipton gun vise (deluxe model), and the shelves sag with the weight of ammo, scope rings, spare parts, magazines, choke tubes, tooling, tru-oil, lubricants, primers, solvents, components, scopes, slings and swivels, muzzleloading junk, bore snakes, cleaning rods and jags, and even a big box of kosher salt mixed with borax for drying hides of stuff I shoot. Most recent resident was a red squirrel who zigged when he should have zagged and is now the source of fur for nymphs and crayfish patterns. On the other end of the shop is a bookcase loaded with, you guessed it, books about guns, hunting, trapping, reloading, and all that stuff. I have a concealed weapons permit and I favor Smith and Wesson J frames (five for sure). I like shooting pistols and can handle the sting of a .357 magnum snub-nosed revolver. There are ballistics calculators on my computer. The next big project is to build a Pennsylvania long rifle (flintlock, of course) and not from those panty-waist kits they sell at "Track of the Wolf". So I would claim that by anyone's standards I know guns, and I am into guns more than most people I know.

I want all assault rifles banned. Not just a wimpy "let's not sell any more" but a real ban that gets all of them off the streets forever. This could take the form of "turn them in by April 15", a buyback program , or a tax or homeowners insurance rate that makes them a headache to own.

Why? Because they are designed the military for one purpose- to kill large numbers of people quickly and efficiently.  The assault rifle gave the infantry soldier more firepower, that was the point. The little .223 was designed to function smoothly in a semi-auto or automatic weapon, and the smaller cartridge size meant that soldiers could carry more rounds with a lighter rifle to boot.  And this is the problem.

Mass shooters simply do not pick up Browning BAR's (a semi-automatic hunting rifle with a small capacity magazine), Winchester model 94's ( a classic lever action that has killed more deer than any other rifle), Winchester pre-1964 model 70's (a bolt action, there is a consensus that those built prior to 1964 were the about the best hunting rifle ever), or even Smith and Wesson model 29's (Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry .44 magnum, a revolver). Those guns do not have enough firepower to give them the sense of empowerment they need to carry out the act. You have to reload too often, it takes time, and people can run away by the time you have refilled the magazine or cylinder. Or maybe even get to their gun and shoot back. Invariably, mass shooters choose assault rifles or semi-automatic handguns. Both these weapons have detachable magazines that can be replaced quickly, and some rifles have magazines that can hold 30 rounds (BTW the military M-16 originally had a 20 round capacity). In Aurora, CO the shooter had a an aftermarket drum magazine that held 100 rounds. At VA tech, the shooter used a glock pistol, but had multiple aftermarket magazines that increased the capacity from about 9 rounds to 17 per clip. This turned his pistol into a shorter version of an assault rifle, albeit with less measured firepower (most pistol cartridges have less velocity and energy than most rifle cartridges). Alas, it was still enough to set a record for most people killed. The firepower/empowerment issue is the reason why mass shooters can do what they do, and it needs to be fixed.

I am glaringly unpursuaded by any of the arguments I have seen repeated ad nauseum again during the past few weeks. To whit:

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Maybe, but you can make them much harder to get so that these incidents will become less common. All laws are broken by some people, the idea is that law and consequences are a deterrent to crime. The implied idea is that because someone somewhere will go on a rampage with an illegal gun we can't try and reduce the odds by passing any laws because it would not be perfect. This is stupid. The argument could be applied to the existence of any law, but it is only applied to firearms. In the case of Newtown, Adam Lanza's mother was the law abiding citizen who was the actual gun owner. Being armed did not help her, and the outlaw shot the "armed good guy" in her sleep and headed off with more firepower than an entire company of civil war soldiers. And no one is really talking about a gun ban. The discussion is about assault rifles.

The constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms. Yes, it does. I won't argue that. But does it guarantee that you can own whatever arm you want whenever you want it? If this is the case, we would be allowed to have private ownership of B-52's, rocket propelled grenades, Ricin and botulism capsules, and dynamite ought to be available by the register at the hardware store. There is a ton of stuff that private citizens can not acquire because it is too dangerous to have around. We simply are adding assault rifles to the list. And we should. It is a simple public health and safety issue. Even Justice Scalia opined that the second amendment does not guarantee every type of weapon. And do note that the second amendment frames the right in the context of "well regulated militias". The NRA conveniently leaves this part out of their banners. If you are going to be champion of cause, why would you hide part of the language? I know, I know, the supreme court had a couple cases on this. But it makes me think that people are trying to pull a fast one.

This is just the first step on a slippery slope that will lead to confiscation of all our guns. This is largely due to a case of mass paranoia induced by the now-crazy NRA. The NRA actually supported certain gun restrictions in the past. After the mayhem of the 1920's machine guns were regulated highly, and after the Kennedy assassination you could no longer buy mail order rifles. The NRA supported both rules, especially the mail order ban.The present argument is a winner for them because it induces fear, because it is impossible to prove that you are not out to get them. I used to work with a miserable person who did not like to work, and who was compelled to punish our employer for some perceived wrongful act. Whenever he got an assignment (you will work with this group to do that task), he would state emphatically that "they are out to get me". He would then behave badly, act in disruptive ways, and not get any assignment done. When called out on it, his response was invariably, "see, they were out to get me". This is one of the most ingenious strategies ever because, although wrong, it completely reframes the argument away from what the NRA does not want to talk about.

The assault rifle is an essential part of hunting and shooting. Yeah, right. Only a small percentage of hunters hunt with these things, and you will never convince me that they are needed. Show me one type of hunting that requires a high capacity semi-automatic rifle because that many shots are required to harvest game or control nuisance animals. They are used for varmint hunting out west where people shoot lots of prairie dogs and ground squirrels in a single outing, but it isn't like the varmints are going to mass together and gnaw out your eyeballs like that pack of cute little dinos in the Jurassic Park sequel unless you can blast them en masse without reloading. Your .223 ammunition can be used in bolt action guns, I own one and it is more accurate than most semi-autos. There are also a couple of competitions that use them, alas, those guys will have to find a different competition to compete in. Blame it on me.

As an aside, there was this fantastic hunting show on the outdoor channel just last week about how important it was to have "modern semi-automatic rifles" (read assault rifles) for hunting exotic sheep in Texas. The argument seemed to be "this modern semi-auto rifle has been used for several years and why it looks like new" while "this classic bolt action sure shows some signs of wear and tear". And then they both mug the camera as if to show the Colt company that they did their part. There may be a logical fallacy here but the most valuable rifles I have ever seen at auction were the beat-to-shit field pieces carried by people like Teddy Roosevelt, Bell of Africa, and other notable folks. Wear and tear is normal unless you are the type of guy that keeps everything in the gun room and never ventures outside. They are not, and will never be essential for any of the shooting sports.

I need it for home defense. Dude, if you need that much firepower you need to rethink 1) your lifestyle, and 2) what really works. If you are stuck in a bad number 1 situation, go to the gun shop and buy a remington 870 12 gauge pump. You can buy 4 for the current price of an assault rifle. Fill it with turkey loads that have an ounce or more of number 6 shot. Then go to the local humane society and get a pit bull puppy. There are thousands languishing there. The dog provides an early warning system that is way better than any electronic stuff you can buy, and the sight of a pit bull looking out the window combined with the distinctive sound of a shell being racked into an 870 chamber will make even the most raving lunatic pee in their pants. This is sort of an absurd argument, but there are loads of alternatives to the assault rifle that do not provide the sense of empowerment to lunatics. And if you did need to fire, you can take down a barn with one of those things.

The assault rifle is the only thing that stands between the citizens and the tyranny of government. Bullshit. There are 10.3 million deer hunters in the U.S. There are 1.4 million people in the military. Do the math. In the event of a tyranny imposed by a dictator, about 1 in 7 deer hunters would have to fire once. And can just hear all the NRA members screaming "but some deer hunters are also in the military so you are wrong!". OK, but you get the picture and we can count upland hunters, waterfowlers, varmint hunters, elk hunters, bighorn sheep hunters, raccoon hunters, bear hunters, moose hunters, pick a species. Oh, target shooters too. I win. Assault rifles are not the last bastion protecting our democracy.

There are a zillion other arguments out there, but these were the most common. There were also some rather amusing exchanges that were too good not to report:

"They can't take away my guns because I bought them at gun shows and they can't be traced". This was posted on the internet  right next to his name and email address.

"I am worried about an assault weapons ban, but what pisses me off more is the NRA calling me 3 or 4 times a week and demanding money. All they do is try and scare the shit out of people". Overheard at a gun shop of all places.

"I could put a machine gun on this counter, and it could sit there for 20 years and as long as some lunatic didn't grab it it would be completely harmless and hurt no one". Overheard at gun shop. My point exactly.

"I can reload my lever action or pump gun faster than anyone can shoot with an assault rifle" (internet post implying that assault rifles are no different than other guns). If this were true, why is the U.S. military not equipping our armed forces with lever actions and classic double barrel shotguns? There are some pump guns used in warfare but nearly all soldiers are issued assault rifles and most training is devoted to those. Verfied this via a marine who just graduated from basic.


I have heard some good proposals and would like to share some analysis of them.

1. Gun buybacks.

These are useful, but not in the way you would expect. Most of the firearms turned in in these things are antique, obsolete, or junkers that are as likely to explode in your hand as they are to fire a round. This will not reduce mass shootings because people generally do not turn in large numbers of Glocks and Bushmasters. But they do remove weapons from the households of people who are completely unfamiliar with them. It does promote public safety, especially for children who might find them. Of course, I got an email praising a sidebar "we pay cash" buyback that was competing with the cops who were offering measly gift cards for guns. They were buying assault rifles for resale. The sender thought this was American Free enterprise at its finest.

2. Education

One friend suggested that everyone who wants to own guns should be required to take a class about safety, insurance, liability, etc. He claims that once people realized the depth of responsibility fewer would want to own guns. I like this and would add that you would have to pass a marksmanship test. Most people can't shoot worth shit, and that would reduce their presence as well.

3. Rebranding Assault rifles

One post urged everyone to start referring to their black rifles as "modern semi-automatic rifles". The claim was that, technically, an assault rifle had full-auto capability so the civilian semi-auto versions were not assault rifles, really. And rebranding would make the libtards less afraid of them. I agree, and  the new term for these things will be "tiny penis rifles". I can see the ad campaign now. BTW, any TV or Radio personality or comic may use this joke free of charge although it may go on facebook later tonight.

4. It is the magazine, and not the gun

This actually might work. If magazines were restricted to 5 rounds, it would reduce the empowerment somewhat and give at least a few people a fighting chance to get away. Of course this would only work if people got rid of all existing high capacity mags, but you could not really make a straight-faced claim that your right to bear arms is being buggered. Better yet, it might be possible to alter the receivers on assault rifles so the mag was no longer detachable and they could only be loaded from top. This would be an inconvenience but nothing more. And anyone who brings up the issue of "destroying the look of a fine AR-15 by altering the upper, shut the fuck up. They are hideous and even fans of them admit they are ugly as sin.

5. Armed security

I want teachers teaching, and not focused on where the gun is. Armed and trained cops in every school would work. Since the NRA is one of the primary reasons that weapons sales are going through the roof, they will pay for it. We can also dump an excise tax on all unmodified assault rifles to help make up any shortfalls. Someone estimated the cost of this as close to 1 billion dollars, so NRA members should expect 5 to 6 phone calls a week from Homeland Security asking for donations. Maybe every day.

6. Sell off your assault rifles

This is happening and it is weird. Assault rifle sales are to the point where many gun shops are sold out with none to be had. What isn't talked about is a massive increase in the number of these things being sold as within-state private sales (perfectly legal). You would think that everyone would be hanging on to these things for dear life and burying them in the backyard pursuant to President Obama's putative big gun grab, but there are a crapload of them for sale in Michigan as we speak. I guess that the sanctity of the second amendment isn't as high as we thought, as long as buyers pay double or triple. 

7. Better mental health care

This is what the libtards have been calling for for years, but the same legislators loved by the NRA are the same bunch that tends to vote against any tax dollars for anything other than military spending. Note that as part of the mental health upgrade we need a huge public awareness program about groups that induce paranoia and its societal effects. I think that Obamacare would cover this, but oh. We hate that too.

8. Reduce military spending

If guns were taken away, it would be done by the military. But the NRA supports (generally) republicans who vote for a strong military, who are the people that would  take away their guns. Still trying to figure that one out. Refer to idea 7.

9. Marksmanship classes in high school

This a truly good idea. I used to work at the rifle range at a boy scout camp, and the troops were pretty boisterous right up until the minute the senior instructor fired a wimpy .22 long rifle into a ripe tomato as a demonstration of what would happen to your head if you were shot. After that they got attentive and serious, and we never had a serious safety incident. It would be fun and might get them off the couch and away from mindless videos. I do not see the connection between violence and videos, but I do see a connection with lack of reading. It would teach a useful skill, safety, and would be a good dose of reality about guns. And I have to admit, I can't count the number of times that journalists with no knowledge of firearms make factual mistakes in their reporting about guns. Most are de minimus, but the gun rights crowd seizes on this as proof positive that the gun regulations crowd is just plain stupid. And some are.

10. Refuse to have sex with anyone who owns an assault rifle until they turn it in to the local police station.

Problem solved within the first week.

So far, the NRA has won this hands down. They know that they can keep most people too afraid to have the discussion, and that in a month or two everyone will focus on the next distraction and the problem will fade into memory except for coverage of the one year anniversary. This is the way it is. Four million people can make enough noise so that the other 306 million of us can live with fear and dread.


I used to dislike the NRA because I am a hunter. Their litmus test for political support was a public proclamation of gun rights, and it did not matter if the candidate was also selling off state game lands to loggers, trying to turn national forests in a playground for mining, attempting to gutting environmental regulations that made game and fish safe to eat, and favoring energy policies that destroy habitat. As long as they supported gun rights anything else was OK. They co-opted almost every outdoor sporting organization so those groups spend ten times as much time talking about gun rights as they do habitat. But this latest go-round has pissed me off royally. Somewhere, out there, I want someone to know that hunters and gun owners are not all alike, and some of us care about what happened. I own only one or two guns that might be subject to regulation (semi-auto .22's) but I would give them up in a heartbeat if I thought that it would reduce the chance of ever having to hear about Aurora, Newtown, or Virginia Tech again. We owe those people a voice. Theirs was taken from them by bad public policy dictated by the NRA. And anyone who believes that their their second amendment rights to own assault weapons is more important than the first amendment rights of defenseless first graders (the life part of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness) is a sociopath. OK, that last part was stolen from a facebook friend who is a far better writer than I will ever be.

The irony in all this is that had the NRA issued a press release offering sorrow and condolence, and said something to the effect of "we will have a discussion about gun issues, but not now out of repect for the lost children and their families" they might have had to endure background checks at gun shows, limits on magazine capacity,  and maybe a wimpy assault weapons ban. Probably a lot like the last ban that really did not do much and wasn't enforced much anyway. Instead, they came out with both guns blazing and missed with all 36 shots (Glocks, extended magazine plus one in the chamber). Now, there are millions of people who would support taking their guns simply because they now think that all NRA members are a bunch of assholes and deserve whatever happens. And the subsequent internet comments have been like adding gas to an open flame.

I have no illusions. Few people read this blog, and I expect maybe three or four comments, most of which will be of the "filthy liberal scum" variety. I am one, but with guns. So save your breath. I doubt this blog will have a profound influence on public policy. In the end, if there is a gun ban, the NRA will have probably done it to themselves.