The fundamental problem is the stranglehold that the fearful rightist radicals in the GOP base have upon the GOP primaries. Whether race-based fears, illusions of "jack-booted government thugs" coming to take their guns, or paranoia about leftist radicals, these people consider unlimited personal weaponry to be an existential matter. Probably the most workable counter to this is open primaries with ranked-choice voting and "top-x" (x=3,4, whatever) candidates going on to the general election.
And yet, when you point out to these fearful and paranoid base voters that the right to unlimited personal weaponry applies to Antifa and other city folks (translation: brown people) they are a lot more interested in gun safety laws.
It's not all fear. Some of it is that guns can just be fun. With the added benefit that owning an assault rifle is sticking their thumbs in the eyes of the libtards. I know someone like that.
Their fear is that the liberals will use government to put them under their heal by autocratic force, and if they don't have AR-15s to fight against an unjust government with they feel like they'll be fucked. That's their whole reason for owning AR-15s is to make sure their federal government never gets *too* liberal, lest it need be put down by violent overthrow. They want AR-15s as a failsafe against government getting too liberal for their liking.
Unfortunately this is the only fear I see being assuaged by owning an AR-15. I just don't see how it's practical for hunting or personal home security.
What I always read is that they have fear of government and they want to be able to mount a revolution, which is so very ignorant, as if they could actually mount a revolution against the weapontry of the US Military?
Ignorance is a key element of the pro facist men they idealize. Keep them ignorant of history and they won't realize that the minute these people take power they will collect all the guns and they won't care a bit about how many people die in the process.
If someone attacks me, I'll unlock my gun safe, load my AR-15, and then the attacker will be sorry? Or should I carry the AR-15 everywhere loaded? It just seems like the fear of attack or home invasion would be mitigated by a handgun; the AR-15 seems like it would be a burden in that scenario.
An AR-15 hit to a torso at under 50 yards is usually going to drop someone immediately. You often have to shoot someone several times with a handgun in the torso to drop them. There is an insane amount of difference in lethality between a .223/5.56 bullet fired from an AR-15 versus a jacketed hollow point fired by a handgun. It's not even close. What the AR-15 lacks in smaller size it makes up for in terminal ballistics.
The ugly reality of self-defense is that you're not concerned about your would-be attacker in the slightest. The very reason we don't want these guns used on children is precisely why someone would want it for self-defense. You want to stop them immediately. And contrary to popular opinion, the caliber doesn't necessarily mean "stopping power", often thought to mean the impact itself is forceful enough to stop someone. In reality, what stops them is most likely a sudden drop in blood pressure caused by serious internal damage leading to unconsciousness.
That being said, there are many weapons that can stop someone in their tracks and it doesn't mean that I should own one. Most people would probably be best served by a 12ga shotgun to product their home and family. Out on the street, that's not going to work, but I'm not against concealed carry at all. My problem is that even when Texas required me to take a course in order to get my license, people that had scary bad aim (like missing a human-shaped target at 3 yards!!) still got their licenses!!!!!! At that point it just feels like it's about revenue collection for the state and not about ensuring safe carriers.
This may be true for some people, but it's not my experience with the MAGAs in my family. They have income-earning skills and people skills that give them lots of confidence. They also have a lot of misplaced anger they don't know what to do with. As the men get over the age of 70, their impulse control seems to lessen and the threats slip out.
Do you have to feel powerless to threaten violence? Sometimes, that is the underlying reason. But not always. Rage doesn't always come from powerlessness. And it doesn't help that this rage is constantly being stoked beyond proportion by an honor culture.
The fundamental problem is the stranglehold that the fearful rightist radicals in the GOP base have upon the GOP primaries. Whether race-based fears, illusions of "jack-booted government thugs" coming to take their guns, or paranoia about leftist radicals, these people consider unlimited personal weaponry to be an existential matter. Probably the most workable counter to this is open primaries with ranked-choice voting and "top-x" (x=3,4, whatever) candidates going on to the general election.
The non-Republican primary voters can vote for people (Democrats) who support gun control measures.
And yet, when you point out to these fearful and paranoid base voters that the right to unlimited personal weaponry applies to Antifa and other city folks (translation: brown people) they are a lot more interested in gun safety laws.
Famously, when armed black panthers showed up at the California legislature in the late '60s, a new interest in gun regulation emerged!
They're afraid because of their Fox addiction. The left can't help them with that.
I can't quite figure out which fear is assuaged by owning an AR-15.
It's not all fear. Some of it is that guns can just be fun. With the added benefit that owning an assault rifle is sticking their thumbs in the eyes of the libtards. I know someone like that.
Their fear is that the liberals will use government to put them under their heal by autocratic force, and if they don't have AR-15s to fight against an unjust government with they feel like they'll be fucked. That's their whole reason for owning AR-15s is to make sure their federal government never gets *too* liberal, lest it need be put down by violent overthrow. They want AR-15s as a failsafe against government getting too liberal for their liking.
Unfortunately this is the only fear I see being assuaged by owning an AR-15. I just don't see how it's practical for hunting or personal home security.
What I always read is that they have fear of government and they want to be able to mount a revolution, which is so very ignorant, as if they could actually mount a revolution against the weapontry of the US Military?
Ignorance is a key element of the pro facist men they idealize. Keep them ignorant of history and they won't realize that the minute these people take power they will collect all the guns and they won't care a bit about how many people die in the process.
If someone attacks me, I'll unlock my gun safe, load my AR-15, and then the attacker will be sorry? Or should I carry the AR-15 everywhere loaded? It just seems like the fear of attack or home invasion would be mitigated by a handgun; the AR-15 seems like it would be a burden in that scenario.
An AR-15 hit to a torso at under 50 yards is usually going to drop someone immediately. You often have to shoot someone several times with a handgun in the torso to drop them. There is an insane amount of difference in lethality between a .223/5.56 bullet fired from an AR-15 versus a jacketed hollow point fired by a handgun. It's not even close. What the AR-15 lacks in smaller size it makes up for in terminal ballistics.
The ugly reality of self-defense is that you're not concerned about your would-be attacker in the slightest. The very reason we don't want these guns used on children is precisely why someone would want it for self-defense. You want to stop them immediately. And contrary to popular opinion, the caliber doesn't necessarily mean "stopping power", often thought to mean the impact itself is forceful enough to stop someone. In reality, what stops them is most likely a sudden drop in blood pressure caused by serious internal damage leading to unconsciousness.
That being said, there are many weapons that can stop someone in their tracks and it doesn't mean that I should own one. Most people would probably be best served by a 12ga shotgun to product their home and family. Out on the street, that's not going to work, but I'm not against concealed carry at all. My problem is that even when Texas required me to take a course in order to get my license, people that had scary bad aim (like missing a human-shaped target at 3 yards!!) still got their licenses!!!!!! At that point it just feels like it's about revenue collection for the state and not about ensuring safe carriers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2023/ar-15-damage-to-human-body/?itid=hp-top-table-main_p001_f004
This may be true for some people, but it's not my experience with the MAGAs in my family. They have income-earning skills and people skills that give them lots of confidence. They also have a lot of misplaced anger they don't know what to do with. As the men get over the age of 70, their impulse control seems to lessen and the threats slip out.
Do you have to feel powerless to threaten violence? Sometimes, that is the underlying reason. But not always. Rage doesn't always come from powerlessness. And it doesn't help that this rage is constantly being stoked beyond proportion by an honor culture.