Michigan Republicans' bill: Make AR-15 state's official rifle ( www.detroitnews.com )

Some days, those who would command govern represent us just make it too easy for, among other things, finding "post fodder."

In the shadow of Michael William Nash's demonstration of his 2^nd^ Amendment rights on Saturday, according to The News…

Twelve Michigan House Republicans have sponsored a bill this month to the name the AR-15 "the official rifle of this state," drawing criticism from opponents who labeled the proposal unserious and inappropriate.

For those who don't know, the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle. Bear that in mind when reading the following.

State Rep. Brian BeGole, R-Antrim Township, a former Shiawassee County sheriff, was the primary backer of the AR-15 measure and said in a statement issued Tuesday that thousands of people in Michigan own an AR-15. […] “This distinction recognizes these law-abiding gun owners who are often vilified just for having a firearm as a hobbyist or to keep their homes and families safe," BeGole said.

That's some hobby. Keep their homes and families safe. Safe from the government BeGole has represented most of his life, according to the oft-debated 2^nd^ Amendment.

However, Ryan Bates, director of End Gun Violence Michigan, said BeGole's bill was about "worshiping the rifle that is the preferred weapon of mass shooters." […] Bates noted that on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal ban on bump stocks, a rapid-fire gun accessory that was used in a mass shooting at a music festival Las Vegas in 2017.

"That shooter used 23 AR-style rifles modified with bump stocks to kill 58 people and injure nearly 500 in mere minutes," Bates said. "We now live in a world where any deranged person can turn an AR-style rifle into a machine gun capable of firing 400-800 rounds per minute, a level of firepower that quite simply overwhelms law enforcement."

We all know that rabbit and pheasant can get pretty mean. And who doesn't like their venison pre-ground? To quote my favorite philosopher and thinker, myself…

It’s forever High Noon in this nation of cowboys.

Ah, almost forgot! Use it everyday!

Alt link for your convenience via archive.is

If you can't see the crazy person on the bus, it's you.
!detroit ☆ !michigan ☆ !music

HelixDab2 ,

Why the AR-15? Why not the FN-FAL, the AR-10, FN F-2000, the L85A2, Steyr AUG, HK G36 or, shit, even the Keltec RBD?

Yeah, the AR-15 is a great carbine and all, but why elevate that particular rifle as a state rifle?

JackbyDev ,

Yeah, that's what I was wondering. Was it designed by someone from Michigan or something?

HelixDab2 ,

Doesn't seem to be. Eugene Stoner lived in Florida and California. Armalite--and later Colt--aren't based in Michigan.

JackbyDev ,

Yeah, if there was some historical reason (even a weak one) I'd be more okay with this. It's so lazy. I'm under no false pretenses that the main point of this isn't to "own the libs" but at least make a reason that makes sense for your state lol. Once your state has something (like a flag, state X, etc.) it is much more difficult to change it.

Like, even saying the double barrel shotgun because it represents the two peninsulas or something would be better lol.

Bezzelbob ,
@Bezzelbob@lemmy.world avatar

Most states have shooting ranges to practice, Michigan has schools

nickwitha_k ,

The state of Michigan has no historical connection to the AR-15, to my knowledge. Why don't they pick something that is actually native to Michigan like the Johnston Muzzleloader?

todd_bonzalez ,

I mean, the actual answer is that this is just another "trigger the libs" exercise, and they are choosing the AR-15 because it is the favorite of mass-shooters.

They don't want to celebrate guns, obviously, or they would choose something native to Michigan like you say. They want to celebrate whatever the left opposes, even if it means celebrating the weapon of choice for mass murderers.

Olhonestjim ,

I'm a gun owner. I have an AR-15. I don't want to hurt anybody, just to be able to defend my home against these very same lunatics. If anybody is going to get guns banned in the USA, it's gonna be these people doing it to themselves by their unsafe, insane, hateful practices endangering everybody else.

ILikeBoobies ,

Lol, i need a gun to protect myself from others with guns

Aside from a ban meaning you don’t need one anymore. If you’re ever in a position where you need a gun, then it’s already too late to protect yourself

Olhonestjim ,

Yeah, maybe you're right. The cops will keep us all safe from fascists.

Too bad about Ukraine and how they fell in 3 days when the Russians invaded. After all, if you need weapons to defend yourself, it's already too late. Everybody knows that. The best policy is always to immediately surrender and hope they decide to be nice to you.

ILikeBoobies ,

Ukraine and Russia were fighting for a decade before that

If you think your easy bake rifle is enough to prevent a foreign invasion that overwhelms the US military then you’re ignorant enough to be a gun supporter

Olhonestjim ,

Oh thank you, what an excellent point you've made. Truly, you have destroyed the argument for self defense.

I never suggested we would be invaded by foreigners. Nor did I suggest fighting cops and the military, did I?

I said fascists. Yup, I sure did. Reading is fundamental.

ILikeBoobies ,

I figured you would want to come up with an actual point

Olhonestjim ,

Woosh

ILikeBoobies ,

Not really, you edited your comment

Olhonestjim ,

I made it clear exactly who I was talking about in my very first comment that you replied to.

ILikeBoobies ,

Too bad about Ukraine and how they fell in 3 days when the Russians invaded

You did but you ignored your own comment

The cops will keep us all safe from fascists.

Was already addressed in that by the time they have a gun to your face there isn’t anything you can do. If you still don’t believe that then look at every mass shooting. Congrats on having a rifle, I guess you just have to keep it raised at every one…oh but then they have to do the same so now you can’t recognize a threat

Olhonestjim ,

In as short of a response as you can, please state who I was concerned about in my response to the article.

ILikeBoobies ,

People that only have guns because there aren’t restrictions

Rivalarrival ,

If you’re ever in a position where you need a gun, then it’s already too late to protect yourself

Someone has never heard of concealed carry. Nor have they ever heard something go bump in the night.

ILikeBoobies ,

Oh yay it’s in your pocket, you will certainly be able to get it out, loaded, and take the safety off without the person threatening you noticing

Rivalarrival ,

Who pocket carries?

Who carries a pistol unloaded?

Who carries a pistol with a manual safety?

I'm not trying to be insulting. Your points are valid and worthy of consideration. However, the issues you have raised have long since been addressed.

Typically, concealed carriers use "IWB" ("inside waistband") holsters to keep their handguns at the ready. Not a pocket. It's actually very easy to draw from an IWB holster.

All modern pistols are specifically designed to be safely carried with a round chambered. Some training doctrine calls for handguns to remain loaded but unchambered. Israeli soldiers carry without a round chambered, but they are the exception. The broad consensus now is that your carry/duty pistol should be loaded, chambered, and ready to fire.

External safeties were common in older pistol models intended for duty use, where the user might be on horseback, and they commonly used a belt holster with a large flap that required both hands to reholster. The thinking was that a safety made sense when the user has the gun in their hand, but their attention was on something other than shooting. For example, if a cavalry officer's horse were to start bucking, they were trained to immediately thumb on the safety and tend to their mount with pistol still in hand, rather than try to take the time to reholster.

Modern pistols are designed to be used with modern holsters. A modern holster protects the trigger from unintentional discharge. As soon as a carry gun is drawn, it needs to be ready to fire, so very few carry guns actually have manually operated safeties anymore. Modern duty holsters are designed for one-handed reholstering.

The internal safety features of modern handguns are intended to block the striker from hitting the cartridge in case of a mechanical malfunction. They are not intended to prevent firing when the trigger is pulled.

Please, ask reasonable questions and make reasonable observations. This is a serious subject. Please don't treat it like a joke.

todd_bonzalez ,

I have some bad news for you.

An AR-15 is really only good for wartime scenarios (and mass-murder). If your goal is self defense, you have chosen a terrible gun that limits your mobility and cannot protect you at close range. A handgun is vastly superior for the purpose of self-defense.

Not that your choice of gun matters here. The choice to have a gun at all actually increases your risk of being victim of a violent crime, and that's just the odds for you. Having a gun in your house at all greatly increases the risk that you or someone in your home will die accidentally, or by suicide. Those odds are greater than those of any violent lunatic breaking into your home and murdering anyone in it.

If you want a gun because you expect to be at war with tyrants, more power to you. If your goal is to minimize the risk of harm to you and your family, unless you have some actual enemies you expect to have to deal with, you are better of without a gun in your home, or at least not one that is easy to access.

FireTower ,
@FireTower@lemmy.world avatar

The choice to have a gun at all actually increases your risk of being victim of a violent crime, and that's just the odds for you. Having a gun in your house at all greatly increases the risk that you or someone in your home will die accidentally, or by suicide. Those odds are greater than those of any violent lunatic breaking into your home and murdering anyone in it.

Aside from poking fun at the notion a violent home invasion is something to contrast with violent crime, there's a serious problem here. In the study of criminal justice (and many social sciences) it is nearly impossible in most cases to separate correlation and causation. This is due to the difficulties in setting control groups and the many possible factors that may influence these events.

A person cognisant that they are at increased risk of violent crime might feel inclined to acquire a firearm. This doesn't necessarily mean the purchase caused the victimization. That is like saying doing chemotherapy increases your risk of dying of cancer. And someone experiencing suicidal ideation might purchase a firearm to commit the act. Putting this notion once again on its head.

HelixDab2 ,

I have an AR-15. It's a perfectly fine rifle for hunting medium sized game at ranges of up to about 300y (which is a longer shot than you'll ever get in the woods). It's the preferred rifle for people that are trying to thin out coyote packs or sounders of feral pigs.

Fun fact, did you know that having a sink in your home increases the odds that someone in your home will die of drowning? Probably outta get rid of those.

Honytawk ,

Does that mean the AR-15 is a sanctioned school shooter gun?

bradorsomething ,

Can they make school shootings the official state shooting?

eran_morad ,

Why are we letting these backward degenerates have a say in society?

HelixDab2 ,

...Are you saying that there are certain people that you don't believe should be allowed to have a vote?

That seems like a... Dangerous path to head down.

eran_morad ,

No, i am saying we should use our vote to deny the degenerates a say in society.

HelixDab2 ,

And who, exactly, defines "degenerate"? Because I know there are quite a lot of people that would define "degenerate" as anyone that is non-Christian, LGBTQ+ or LGBTQ-affirming, or non-"white" (however they're currently defining "whiteness").

The only way you deny these so-called degenerates a say in society is by intentionally disenfranchising them, in much the same way that Republicans have made an effort to deny non-white people a say in society through gerrymandering and voter-ID laws. (Or, earlier, through "literacy tests" and the like, or simply murdering people that tried to get black people registered to vote.)

eran_morad ,

One day you’re going to grow up and realize you’re in a zero-sum game. It’s them or us. Choose.

HelixDab2 ,

So you're saying my choices are either to side with fascists that want to take rights from people, or fascists that want to take rights from different people?

And no, it's not a zero-sum game. My parents were life-long Republicans. They switched in the 2016 election, and have been voting mostly Democratic since then. I was raised in a deeply conservative religion, and was raised to be homophobic; I have changed, because I learned differently. The game, as you say, isn't zero-sum; it's persuasion. If you aren't being persuasive, then you need to find better ways of reaching people, and yelling and telling them they're terrible ain't doing it. You certainly don't win with circular firing squads.

Blackout ,
@Blackout@kbin.run avatar

The AR-15 is an absolutely shitty rifle unless you were going to kill people with it. The selection is also completely oblivious to what most residents use for hunting deer. So these repubs are posers that know shit about guns. As a liberal former deer hunter I'd recommended the .308 Winchester or the 30-06 Springfield. Actual rifles people use in this state for anything but the mass killing of children.

SupraMario ,

The 2nd isn't for hunting....you sound like a FUDD.

Blackout ,
@Blackout@kbin.run avatar

It absolutely is for hunting cause that's what everyone was using in the 80s. Probably outdated now but so is Michigan

SupraMario ,

The 2nd amendment is not for hunting.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Yes, it was for slaveholders.

SupraMario ,

And its now for everyone. An armed minority is harder to oppress. You know why the LGBTQ+ and minority communities have the largest increase ever in gun ownership? I'll give you a hint: it's not because the 2nd was for slaveholders....

afraid_of_zombies ,

I am way too privileged to tell you how to protect yourself. With that said you can look at it two ways

  1. Read what Patrick Henry said about it. The second amendment was to stop revolts and at the same time provide a non-federal way to have a military. Which was required because he noted that blacks who served in the revolutionary war were made free afterwards. The goal was to keep the black population enslaved. You can also read federalist paper 46 and understand that a well regulated militia is not a dude with a gun. It means an organized fighting force.

  2. The second way you can go about it is work backwards. States wanted a legal way to raise their own armies in an emergency. Well what kinda emergency were they planning for? You don't need a guy with a musket to deal with a flood. The emergencies we are told are revolts. Who is going to revolt the white population non-slaves or the black slave population?

The 2nd amendment existed to allow slave patrols to function. Even people who argued it was for a national guard type thing weren't thinking of random people with guns.

FireTower ,
@FireTower@lemmy.world avatar
  1. Justice Story had a better take with consideration of the historical roots of the recognition of the right:

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

  1. There's other types of emergencies that were very pressing at the time. Namely attacks from the Iroquois Confederacy and the Crown of England (once the War of 1812 broke), just to limit it to the early republic period.

This 1619 type revisionism not only portrays the period in an inaccurate shade but diminishes the accomplishments of men, like Peter Salem, and ignores facts agreed upon universally by academia like that at the time of founding miltias were composed of ordinary men.

afraid_of_zombies ,

academia like that at the time of founding miltias were composed of ordinary men.

By men you mean males and what was the color of their skin?

FireTower ,
@FireTower@lemmy.world avatar

By men you mean males

Yes. When I said men I was referring to males. Gentlemen if that clarifies it further. Though there are a few accounts of women (females/ladies) who were camp followers contributing in extenuating circumstances in combat roles.

and what was the color of their skin?

Depended on the person. It was majority Caucasian men, who also made up the majority of the free male population. But as alluded to in the previous comment of mine, Freemen like Mr. Salem joined the fray. Native Americans also fought in some cases on the side of the Patriots, though they mostly sided with the British due to their strong ties to the Iroquois Confederacy.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Lot of effort to not say white males for slave patrols.

Cryophilia ,

And the 2nd amendment is federal. Why should Michigan base their "state gun" off it? Choose a gun that Michiganers actually use.

SupraMario ,

Federal law is above state law...

Cryophilia ,

And?

SupraMario ,

You're the one that pointed out that somehow the AR15 and the second are... somehow tied together?

Cryophilia ,

You're the one who brought up the 2nd amendment, not me

https://lemmy.world/comment/10679419

SupraMario ,

I brought it up from a different user who acts like all guns are for hunting.... your comments have done nothing to further the discussion, they made 0 sence in the context that my comments where in.

Cryophilia ,

I asked,

Why should Michigan base their “state gun” off it?

Referring to the 2nd amendment.

In other words, what the fuck does the 2nd amendment have to do with anything at all? Why did you even bring it up?

SupraMario ,

Because the OP said that the AR15 is a pointless gun and then ranting about hunting....the 2nd is not for hunting. Your comments to mine are pointless.

Cryophilia ,

The 2nd has nothing to do with anything in this conversation. You just non sequitur'd it into the conversation.

SupraMario ,

Sure thing.

Liz ,

Ignoring the confusion between caliber and platform, .556 out of an AR-15 is still a great choice for anything roughly cat-to-human sized. Prairie Dogs, antelope, goats, sheep, foxes, coyotes, that sort of thing.

frezik ,

AR15 is very popular for wild boar hunting. Not in its original caliber, though. See, one of the advantages of the platform is that it's highly modular, and can put out 6.5 grendal just fine by switching the upper.

Blackout ,
@Blackout@kbin.run avatar

Everyone is ignoring the fact I was talking about the official gun for Michigan. You can't hunt deer like you hunt boars. The AR-15 is a stupid rifle to associate with this state. A deer hunting rifle is a better choice. But I've been shooting my whole life and I fucking hate everything related to that platform. I don't think about boar hunting when it's mentioned, I think about the San Bernardino slaughter.

HelixDab2 ,

A .223 with something like a 75 grain ELD-M bullet would be perfectly adequate for hunting deer. A number of states allow hunting deer with .223; I don't believe that Michigan does though, and certainly not south of Lansing. (I think that's the cut-off for rifle? That might have changed since I lived there.)

There's no reason that you can't hunt deer with .300AAC, or even 7.62x39, both of which an AR-15 can be adapted for.

But I’ve been shooting my whole life and I fucking hate everything related to that platform.

That's an incredibly fudd-y attitude. I'm guess that when you say "deer rifle", you probably mean something with a wooden stock, probably bolt action but maybe lever action, and probably chambered in .30-06, or (gag) .30-30. Or god forbid, .45-70 (because yeah, I want to use a slug with the ballistics of a mortar for hunting). The AR-15 has become popular because it's highly modular, and can get better accuracy cheaper than you can on a more traditional rifle.

southsamurai ,
@southsamurai@sh.itjust.works avatar

See, that's the kind of idiot that makes gun ownership look bad.

They're tools, not a fetish item. You start being an idiot and trying to make a "state rifle" at all, and you undermine every attempt to actually maintain the right to defense via firearms.

raoulraoul OP ,
@raoulraoul@midwest.social avatar

I see. You'd prefer a different kind of idiot, an idiot that would make gun ownership look good.

you undermine every attempt to actually maintain the right to defense via firearms.

From the linked article…

a machine gun capable of firing 400-800 rounds per minute, a level of firepower that quite simply overwhelms law enforcement.

…just in case your family is being attacked by, say, King Edward I of England or the FBI. We are talking about an assault weapon, not a Winchester 1897, perfectly adequate for your maintaining the right to defense via firearms. That is, if you must.

See, I know guns aren't fetish items. You know they're not a fetish item. Everybody knows guns aren't fetish items. Every gun owner claims that they know…while slowly and methodically polishing up and down that long, metal barrel with mineral oil, lost in private thought…proudly displayed in oak credenzas or hung along the wall like so many stuffed bass or marlins. Maybe even modestly stored in a softcase just under the bed. I'd bet Anthony McRae knew, too.

And this charming fellow in Indiana just yesterday knew that guns aren't fetish items.

Also just yesterday in Arkansas, this gun enthusiast and his "right to defense" knew that guns aren't fetish items.

And this firearms advocate celebrating Juneteenth over in Round Rock, Texas. They knew.

And this rifle aficionado in Cincinnati, Ohio.

And this most certainly responsible firearm owner in Lathrup Village, MI, just hours after Michael William Nash’s demonstration of his 2nd Amendment rights in Rochester Hills.

This is no longer a question of the right to defend, or own firearms, or a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". Rationalize and polemicize all you want. This is a sickness. Recognizing and admitting the problem is always the first step in resolving.

We are in agreement on one thing: instead of actively trying to resolve this tragic problem, Rep. Brian BeGole et al are merely clowns.

r^2^ FunFact™: know how many total shootings in 2023 (and 2022) there were just across the Detroit River over in Windsor, Ontario? 11, with zero fatalities in 2023.

FanBlade ,

Acts obtuse about what the person above you said and then goes on a rant about it. This makes it seem more like you’re worried about opportunities to say what you want versus actually listening to others.

raoulraoul OP ,
@raoulraoul@midwest.social avatar

🧘

Those who are free of resentful thoughts surely find peace

~Gautama Buddha

southsamurai ,
@southsamurai@sh.itjust.works avatar

Ffs dude, you are bonkers

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • kbinchat
  • All magazines
    •