Progressive Audacity

Progressives truly are amazing creatures. Amazing in their audacity, they arrogance, and in many aspects their ignorance. A progressive always knows better than you, you are always inferior, and as such they believe they can lie to you, and you will just believe it. They think that you will just lay down and allow them to erode away at your humanity little by little. One such example, and probably one of the best, has to do with our right to own and bear arms, and the progressive’s desire to take that right away from you.

When it comes to gun control, progressives rarely argue hard facts, they prefer to engage in the realm of feelings, emotions, vagaries of perception. The say guns are dangerous, that guns are the problem, that guns need to be controlled. They tells us that if we just allowed them to limit our right to defend ourselves, we would all be safer. When evidence is put forward showing the failings of their arguments, they choose to start an emotional blood bath. They call you a monster, say you want to kill children, ask you if your precious gun is worth the lives of little school children. Of course this is an easy argument to when, you just keep dragging them back into the realm of facts, truth, the world we live in known as reality.

However, every now and again a progressive comes forth that tries to make a factual argument, that attempts to use their superior intelligence to confound the ignorant public, and show us the error of our ways. They step up onto the national stage and show us just how ignorant they truly are. They make claims that AR-15’s are military grade rifles, not based upon how they operate or are made, but rather based upon how they look. They make claims that it can easily be modified into a full auto machine gun, which any firearm enthusiast can tell you is a laughable notion.  They make outrageous claims about lethality, and rates of fire, that any sentient being possessing common sense can see through. They call magazines clips, and clips magazines. I even heard one progressive actually say that if we ban 30 round magazines now, that will lead to their eventual removal from the market. The reason being, that eventually they would all be used. This individual was completely ignorant to the fact that magazines can be reloaded.  I could probably write a book on the foolish things said by Diane Feinstein alone surrounding our right to defend ourselves.

As comical as all of these attempts to coerce us into submission have been, they all pale in comparison to the one that I just saw. Kevin de Leon California State Senator from Los Angeles made a fool of himself and his constituents when he stood in front of the cameras and attempt to promote his legislation requiring background checks for people who build their own firearms. When first I saw this video I about fell out of my chair, there was no way anyone could be this stupid, this had to be a well put together joke. Something I needed this morning. However it hurt my soul when I found out that it was not a joke, Kevin de Leon actually said these things.

In the video Kevin de Leon held in his hands a confiscated homemade fully automatic firearm. Referring to this firearm he says “This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.” So why is this statement made by a politician no one has ever heard of, the greatest example of progressive audacity in recent history? The answer lies in the fact that here is a man who is trying to regulate something he has no clue about. Here is a man who is completely ignorant of firearms, yet his arrogance convinces him that with his more evolved thought processes will cover up for any failings in his firearm knowledge. Rednecks deal with guns, an educated man like himself will make short work of these uncivilized relics.

Allow me to explain. There is a lot of terminology in the world of firearms, terminology that is important to use if you are going to convince people you know what you are talking about. It is like any subject, if you use the right words, you can make yourself appear smart. It is hard to convince people you know how to repair the problem with their car, if you use phrases like “the thing-a-ma-bob on your air scoop thing is broken, please pay me $500”.  Unfortunately using the terminology only works if you know what it means.  The first term he used was correct, a Ghost Gun is a firearm that does not have a serial number, or was homemade. The gun he held in his hand was a valid example of a Ghost Gun. However, after this point the ignorance of Kevin de Leon poured from his mouth like water over Niagara Falls.

Mr.  de Leon said, “this right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip….” I am going to pause right there, because I just can’t get past this comment.  I grew up around guns, so it is easy for me to tell the difference between someone who knows about firearms, and someone who is pretending to.  For those of you who do not have a large knowledge base about firearms, allow me to explain why this statement brings tears to my eyes.  When someone makes a reference to a caliber, what they are describing is the width of the bullet. There is no such thing as a .30-caliber clip, I assume that Kevin de Leon was trying to say 30 round clip. This little hiccup could easily be attributed to nerves, a slip of the tongue, however, there is more wrong with this statement than just a little verbal slip.  Kevin de Leon said “.30-caliber clip” even if he was trying to make reference to a 30 round clip, his terminology still betrays his ignorance of firearm mechanics. To those unfamiliar with firearms, the term magazine and clip are interchangeable. However, there is a major difference. A clip is a device that holds ammunition together, but it does not feed ammunition into the firearm. A magazine on the other hand stores ammunition, much like a clip, however it has a spring that helps feed ammunition into the firearm. Some firearms do utilize a “clip” such as the M1 Garand, but the one in this video clearly is a magazine fed firearm.

Continuing along with our examination of the firearm terminology that Kevin de Leon attempted to use in this statement. The Senator referenced the rate of fire of the firearm in question then said, “Thirty magazine clip in half a second”. We will address the rate of fire referenced here in a moment, for now I would like to focus on the terminology used.  A magazine is a container that feeds ammunition into a firearm. A clip is a container that holds the ammunition. There is no such thing as a magazine clip. It does not exist.

Moving on, I would like to examine one of the claims made in Kevin de Leon’s statement. He made a comment on firearms rate of fire. He claimed that the firearm in his hands had the ability to “disperse with 30 bullets within half a second”. 30 bullets in half a second that works out to 60 bullets a second, 3600 rounds a minute. The MG-42, also known as Hitler’s Buzz Saw had a rate of fire of 1,200 rounds per minute. The 30 millimeter avenger cannon mounted on the A10 Warthog has a rate of fire of 4200 rounds per minute.  So Senator Kevin de Leon is claiming that this homemade submachine gun, has a greater rate of fire than one of the deadliest machineguns of World War II, and is within striking distance of out pacing one of the fastest firearms in the world.  To me something just does not seem to add up.

Here is a link to the MG-42 being fired.  Remember according to the Senator the ghost gun he was holding has a superior rate of fire to this firearm.

Here is a link to the A10 firing its cannon. A weapon that the Senator claims the ghost gun he was holding is almost on par with.

Now it would be easy for me to go into the facts of this issue, very easy. The plain and simple fact is that the gun that Senator Kevin de Leon was holding was fully automatic, and it is all but illegal for citizens to own one of those firearms to begin with. To own a fully automatic firearm a citizen must have a class three license, which requires a background check to acquire. So new legislation requiring that anyone trying to make a gun like the one he has in his hands have a background check is pointless. It is illegal for the average citizen to have one, even if it is home made. So there is already a law that can be used to prosecute people making them. However there is a far greater issue here.

We can argue until the cows come home about our right to defend ourselves, and the reasons the progressives feel they should be allowed to take it from us. But that would be missing the bigger picture. This little clip strikes at the very core of the progressive mindset. Here is a man who is completely ignorant to firearms. He could not be bothered to learn the terminology, understand the items he will be discussing. He went on television and made a mockery of himself, and those whom he represents. Here is a man who knows nothing about firearms, yet he is trying to regulate them. He is trying to restrict those of us who do.  This is something that lays at the core of the progressive mindset. They know better. They always think that they know better than the people who are “below” them. The progressives in the Carter and Clinton administrations thought they knew better than the banks when it came to making home loans, and started dictating how lending agencies had to conduct business. What did we get, the subprime loan crisis. President Obama thought that he knew better than the automakers about how to build cars. What did we get, bond holders screwed out of their money to make union pensions whole,  General Motors going bankrupt despite government intervention, and a 10 billion dollar lose when the government finally relinquished control of the company. President Obama knew more than insurance companies, and he dictated how they were to operate, and for this arrogance we received the obamacare failure. Now they are trying to say they know better when it comes to fire arms, and our right to defend ourselves? How many examples of progressive arrogance, laced with an arsenic coating of ignorance, do we need before we start seeing them for the failures that they are, before we stop listening to them?

I just cannot help but be amazed at the fact that this man went in front of TV cameras and thought that he had a winning argument, that he could pull this illusion off. If you are going to try and convince people to give up one of their fundamental rights, to allow the government to limit rights given from God, and denied to the government, I would think the least you could do would be to at least make a decent attempt.  I know nothing about fashion, not a thing. I have a black shirt dress shirt, black dress pants, and a silver tie, and that rounds out my “formal wear”. I don’t know why that is okay, why it is acceptable. My sister said it was, and it has worked sense high school.  Because of my ignorance, I do not stick my nose into the world of fashion. I would never dream of trying to dictate to people about fashion. However, if I felt that fashion needed to be controlled by the government because of its mental effects on young women, and I was given a chance to do something about it you had better believe that I would take that chance. The difference here is that I accept that I am ignorant of fashion, and I would take the time to learn just what it was that I was talking about. It is clear to me that Senator Kevin de Leon did not feel the need to learn about firearms, to learn about the industry, the terminology, the actual pieces themselves. If he had, he would not have made such a fool of himself in front of millions of people. He is a progressive, and he is trying to achieve one of the progressive’s dreams of eliminating firearms from the people’s hands. They have been working at this goal for decades, slowly striping away at our liberties, step by step.  The senator walked in front of those cameras and tried to regurgitate decades of talking points in a couple minutes, without a clue of what any of it meant.

I had to fight back tears when I first saw this clip, as I said I could not believe that someone actually made this comment on television. Normally the progressives are better at masking their ignorance, using emotions to fill in the gaps in their arguments created by the absence of any supporting facts. When I found out it was real, blood squirted from my eyes. It never ceases to amaze me the arrogance of progressives. They are trying to pass legislation, to regulate, to control something they know absolutely nothing about. They hate it because they were told to. They are marching to orders without a moment’s hesitation, or thought of why. That is what makes them so dangerous. They meddle with things they cannot possibly hope to comprehend, or control. That is what has led to the stagnation of the United States of America under President Obama’s failed economic policies. That is what led to the collapse of the housing market via programs started by Carter, and expanded by Clinton. This is what will collapse our health care system under obamacare.  The arrogance of progressives is enough to cause your blood to boil. The ignorance of progressives is enough to make you feel pity for them. This is just another example of progressive audacity at its finest.

  1. lwk2431 said:

    “They make claims that AR-15’s are military grade rifles, not based upon how they operate or are made, but rather based upon how they look.”

    An AR-15 is a “military grade rifle” if by that you mean “useful for military applications.” They are NOT assault rifles though (because they are not select-fire with the ability for full auto fire). We need to be careful to present the facts with accuracy. By “we” I mean staunch pro-gun, pro-2nd Amendment.

    “I could not believe that someone actually made this comment on television.”

    You will see many things on TV, etc. that will infuriate you. Back when they were debating the 1994 Assault Weapons ban a major TV network filmed a guy shooting a real full-auto M16 at a gun range (in full auto mode obviously) and showed that (without telling them it was indeed a full auto weapon) on TV while essentially arguing for the ban.

    In an article I wrote some time ago on assault weapons:

    I quoted Josh Sugarmann on their strategy:

    “Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.” -Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America



    • An AR-15 is not a “military grade” weapon, although it is based off of one. It is a semi-automatic .223 (or 5.56) caliber rifle. While it is true the Armarlite corporation did develop an AR-15 rifle for the army, that is not the AR-15 that we know today. Armarlite sold the AR design to Colt, who then modified it, and sold it to the US military as the M-16. Colt then started producing a semi-automatic version called the AR-15. It is internally different from the M-16 used by the United States Military, the firing mechanisms are different, they have different bolt carriers, and they have different hammer and trigger mechanisms. The AR-15 looks like a military rifle, but that is about it. Does that mean that I could not use an AR-15 in a military situation, no of course not, but within those parameters than couldn’t every rifle be classified as a military grade firearm?

      Progressives like to use terms like “military grade” in order to scare the public, to manipulate the minds of the people, into thinking that certain firearms are more than they are. An AR-15 is just a scary looking semi-automatic rifle, it is no more a “military grade” firearm than any other magazine fed semi-automatic rifle. It is no more a “military grade” rifle than say a mini 14.

      If I had to choose a rifle to have when an enemy army comes a crossed our border, and I have to use my 2nd amendment right for what it was intended, I would not choose the AR-15. I have one, it is a great firing gun, but it would not be my choice. I would opt instead for my M1 Garand. I like the range, and extra stopping power of the 30-06. In the case of the garand, should it not be classified as a “military grade” weapon, like the AR-15? I would assume so, sense unlike the AR, the M1 actually saw military combat use. The M1 does not fall under the “assault weapons” bans because it is not fed by an external magazine. For some reason holding up the M1, doesn’t seem as strong a political point as holding up a scary black rifle.

      Then brings me to the phrase “assault weapon”. When people hear the phrase “assault weapon” instantly they are transported to the endless fire fields of WWI, the chaos on the beaches of Normandy, the savagery of Vietnam. This is exactly what the progressives want the people of this country to think, always they manipulate. An “assault weapon” is not a military fire arm, designed for the field of battle, as the progressives want you to believe. An “assault weapon” is a semi-automatic rifle that is fed by an external magazine, and looks like a military firearm.

      The term “assault weapon” is designed to play on the primal fears of the populace. It is derived from a term used to describe actual military firearms, known as “assault rifles”. Assault rifles first appeared on the battle fields of WWII, in the form of the Sturmgewerh 44. This rifle was larger than a sub-machine gun such as the Thomson M1A1, but smaller than a battle rifle such as the M1 Garand. To be an assault rifle there are a series of requirements.
      1. Must be designed to be used by a single person
      2. Must be capable of being fired from the shoulder
      3. Must use a intermediate cartridge, larger than a pistol caliber, smaller than a that of a battle rifle.
      4. Its ammunition must be magazine fed, rather than belt fed like a machine gun.
      5. Must be capable of selective fire
      The M-16 is an assault rifle. Its .225/5.56 caliber round is tiny compared to the 30-06 of the M1 Garand, and is small compared to the M-14’s 7.62 (.308). It is capable of selective fire, and it is magazine fed. Assault rifles like the M-16 have been all but banned for civilian use since 1934.

      We do have to get our facts straight, but that does not mean that we have to use the set of “facts” the progressives dictate.

      In regards to Mr. Sugarmann’s comment, ” In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons”. We need to change the way the world thinks, the fact that this is a valid argument is troubling. I am not denying the truth behind it, it just brings up a good point. When did we become a “needs” based society. When did it become ok for the government to dictate our rights based off of what it thinks we need? It does not matter why I need the gun, it does not matter if I need it at all. The government does not have the right to restrict my ownership of that firearm. The government cannot create rights, it does not have that power. We created the government, we gave it the privileges necessary for it to function. We denied the government the power to restrict our right to own and bear arms. The government does not dictate our rights, we dictate its. So as I said, we need to work as a society on refusing to accept that I have to have a need for my rights. It does not matter if I need an AR-15, I want one, and it is my right to have one. If I work hard, make money,and can buy it, then it is no business of the governments why I have it.

      I think you might have inspired another rant.

      • lwk2431 said:

        “An AR-15 is not a “military grade” weapon…”

        “f I had to choose a rifle to have when an enemy army comes a crossed our border…I would opt instead for my M1 Garand.”

        What you would choose is a matter of opinion. The statement that an AR-15 is not “military grade” though is ridiculous on the face of it. The Viet Cong killed a lot of Americans with a semi-automatic, non-assault weapon, SKS rifles that had plenty of military grades. Just count the corpses it made.


        • If you are defining “military grade” by being able to kill, all rifles are military grade. That makes the argument a mute point.

          When progressive anti-gun zealots use the phrase “military grade” they are trying to make it sound like the fire arm was designed for the battle field, and is capable of more destruction and carnage than it really is.

          Can the AR-15 kill someone, yes. If I was on a battle field, could I use an AR-15, yes. But I could also use the M1 Garand, the M1A, the AR-10, the M1 Carbine, The mini-14, a Merlin 336, a Savage 64f, an FAL, the list goes on and on.

          Its a political talking point devised to scare the people into giving up their rights.

          • lwk2431 said:

            “If you are defining “military grade” by being able to kill, all rifles are military grade.”

            The AR-15 was first used by the Air Force in S. Vietnam. It is as capable as an SKS which is most certainly “military grade,” or as I would put, certainly a weapon useful in war.

            “Its a political talking point…”

            I agree on that – the whole phrase “military grade” is a deceptive talking point. That is perhaps the point we _need_ to make, not trying to say the AR-15 could not have useful military applications, because it most certainly could.

            I think we are falling into their trap if we try to argue with them that an AR-15 does not have military utility. Perhaps we need to point out that the M16s the government have are a higher grade of military utility. 🙂



            • You cannot allow them to define the argument. This discussion is a classic example of the point. They cloud the water, and conceal the truth.

              There is much confusion over the history of the AR-15. Such as how Armalite originally created a rifle called AR-15 that was a select fire firearm for the military. Colt bolt the rights, redesigned a few key components and it was ultimately designated the M-16.

              The current AR-15 was introduced by colt in 1963 as a semi-automatic rifle, which while it looks like the AR-15 built by Armalite, and the M-16 that it evolved into, it is mechanically different. It is as capable as any other semi-automatic firearm.

  2. I’ve found getting them to openly justify bodyguards for the very wealthy while denying the same to the poor and middle class to be very entertaining.

    • It is always entertaining forcing a progressive to justify their view points with facts, rather than emotions and hate mongering. Primarily because the facts do not support their beliefs.

  3. lwk2431 said:

    progressivewatch wrote:

    “You cannot allow them to define the argument.”

    That is absolutely correct.

    “They cloud the water, and conceal the truth.”

    In this particular case I am not sure which truth they are concealing. An AR-15 has serious military utility, although not as useful as an M16. Many weapons have serious military uiltity, including hunting rifles. It is better in my view to take the debate to more important and winnable issues, in other words, don’t let them define the argument. 🙂

    “[the AR-15] is mechanically different [than the M16].”

    Replace the lower receiver with an M16 lower receiver with the full auto sear-group and my Colt AR-15 is functionally an M16.

    “[The AR-15] is as capable as any other semi-automatic firearm.”

    It is a very capable semi-automatic firearm. People will probably still be debating the virtues of the 5.56×45 vs. the 7.62×51 a centry from now. Just for the record, I own both (a Colt AR-15 and an M1A).



    • By continuing to argue that the AR-15 has serious military capablity, now with the after thought of other rifles as well, you are allowing them to define the argument.

      They are seeking to eliminate fire arms from our country, well except for those used by the government, and criminals. They are going to start with the easy ones. The ones that look scary.

      They try to paint the AR-15 as a weapon built for war, something that should only be in the hands of soldier on a distant battle feild. It is easy to do, it looks just like an M-16. It is however mechanically different. When this is pointed out, they go into a rant about how they can be easily converted. This conversion aspect, is also fuel for the progressive war on fire.

      The lower reciever is the heart of the gun. It houses the saftey, the searer, the trigger assembly, the bolt catch, fire control switch. Just swaping that out is like building a brand new gun, and requires a M-16 lower, which is milled differently than the lower of the AR-15.
      The M1A is also a very capable semi-automatic firearm, with a military cousin, the M-14. Yet it is not demonized nearly as much in the press as the AR, why is that? Because not as many people know about the M-14, it is not as iconic as the M-16.

      The progressive are on a witch hunt. They want the civilian population of this country disarmed. Lending creditablity to their argument that a semi-automatic rifle is somehow identical to a weapon of war, is insanity. It is no more capable than any other semi-automatic rifle. That does not mean it could not be used, but so could any other rifle. The AR-15 is a poster child for gun control nuts, it looks like an M-16, and stirs images in the peoples mind. A shame really. They have turned a great rifle, one that is fun to shoot at the range, and one I like to use while coyote hunting, into a villian.

      • lwk2431 said:

        How about we agree to disagree on some of the details, but remember we are on the same side? I appreciate your view, and I think it is intelligently thought out, although there are some details I would differ a little on. I wrote an article on my blog a long time ago you might find interesting:

        Who Needs An Assault Rifle?

        The truth is that it is difficult to figure out the exact strategy to use to convince the “middle of the road” folks to our side. The extremists on the other side are beyond any rational argument. It is a waste of time. Whatever arguments we come up with must be aimed at these “middle of the road folks” who haven’t finally made up their mind.

        I have found that it is possible at times to reach those folks. The formula that seems to work best for me is to focus on the inability of government to protect us, and to emphasize the features of these guns that are useful for self defense (my article above). I am open to hearing strategies from others that have worked for them. 🙂



        • Keep up the good fight. Remember, never let a progressive draw you into a battle of emotions, you have to keep it based on facts.


  4. Who cares if the AR is a military grade weapon. Should we dance around the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment? Military weapons are what we ought to have. Given the definition of arms from fairly contemporaneous case law, we all ought to have access to full auto machine-guns as well as grenades.

Let the discussion begin

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: