Colt suspending production of AR-15 for civilians

[Hawkmoon]

Making any distinction between types of arms is asinine and divisive.

Arms are arms.  The ability to acquire, possess and employ arms is the inherent right of existence enumerated in our Constitutions.

You are already choosing between things to give up and things to keep and in so doing have already surrendered your right to the status of privilege.

Absolutely correct. Writing at the time the Bill of Rights was being debated, an influential gentleman named Tench Coxe made some comments that are worth keeping at hand for discussions with fence-sitters as to what the meaning of the Second Amendment is:

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of Americans.

The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia.

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Clearly, it was the intent of the Founders that the citizenry be armed, and armed with weapons as powerful as any possessed by any army (and, particularly, our own army).

[Ben]

I don't see any way we keep our rights, unless we insist on the right to own military weapons. We have to explain why it's part of our history and character.

I agree with this. I rarely see it used to effect though, whenever there is a hullabaloo. Which is maybe why me, and probably many others, have been conditioned to note a difference when people argue to take our EBRs away. Every major  gun rights organization uses the term "modern sporting rifles" for AR15s. I follow what the constitution lays out regarding our right to military weapons, but the major talking point I see from our side every time there's a mass shooting is, not that.

[WLJ]

Small Arms Solutions put this up this morning
It's 46 minutes long but well worth your time. In a nutshell he goes over the cluster __ that Colt has been the past 30 years much of which he saw from the inside.

Colt - Betrayal of the American Gun Owner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt3DCqdnn8w

Other Colt videos he's made recently

The M16A1 “Reissue”, Genuine Colt or Overpriced Copy?
https://youtu.be/--W3sRED9-4


Colt - The Fall of an Empire
https://youtu.be/gpz8KTqoOhk

[WLJ]

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers says he would consider mandatory buybacks for assault weapons.

Democratic presidential candidate and former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke has been pushing for mandatory buybacks on the campaign trail. Republicans have balked at the idea.

Asked if he supports mandatory buybacks during a news conference Thursday to introduce a red flag bill, Evers said he would consider the idea. He didn’t elaborate, saying he was focused on trying to get the red flag bill and a universal background check bill that Democrats introduced last month passed.

Wisconsin Governor Mulling Mandatory Buyback Of AR-15s
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/09/21/wisconsins-governor-is-considering-adopting-some-australianstyle-gun-control-measures-n2553453

[kgbsquirrel]

Wisconsin Governor Mulling Mandatory Buyback Of AR-15s
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/09/21/wisconsins-governor-is-considering-adopting-some-australianstyle-gun-control-measures-n2553453

Wisconsin Governor Mulling Confiscation Of An Enumerated Right.


Stop using their NewSpeak!

[RoadKingLarry]

Yeah, I just can't wrap my mind around the BS term "Buy Back"
In order for you to "buy" something from me I first have to want to sell it. If I decide to sell something I also get to set the price/value of the item being sold.
I'm also not keen on the idea of being forced to sell something to someone using my money to buy it.
I haven't seen any mention yet on how much they are going to make me sell my privately owned personal property for but I doubt it will be my stated price nor market value.
So, instead of a "buy back" we should call it forced confiscation with token compensation.

[Ben]

So, instead of a "buy back" we should call it forced confiscation with token compensation.

I'm guessing they don't really care if you turn your gun in or not. They kinda win either way. If it's illegal to possess and you don't give it up, what do you do with it? You can keep the "illegal" gun hidden away for SHTF  and in most states, no one will be the wiser. Or you can take it into the BFE desert or wherever to shoot where no one else is around.

Most law abiding folk won't take it to the range though, for fear of somebody dropping a dime on them. If you have a job and a paycheck and health insurance, you're gonna worry about what an arrest and criminal conviction will do to your life. Criminals have no such concerns, and I don't think these people give a *expletive deleted*ck about the criminals - they'll happily call disarming us, or making us hide our stuff in an attic, a win.

[Hawkmoon]

Yeah, I just can't wrap my mind around the BS term "Buy Back"
In order for you to "buy" something from me I first have to want to sell it. If I decide to sell something I also get to set the price/value of the item being sold.

The term also implies that you sold the item to me in the first place. Example: In late 1998 I made the mistake of buying one of the very first 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokees off the assembly line. 1999 was the first year of a total redesign of the Grand Cherokee (Jeep model code "WJ"). As is too often the case with new designs, I got a lemon. I owned it less than a year, during which time it spent nearly as much time in the shop as it did in my possession.

To stop me from invoking the lemon law, Daimler Chrysler bought it back from me. THAT's a buyback -- the people who sold it took it bac, and they paid me. The government (at any level) telling me they are going to buy my $1500 firearm and they'll pay me $250 -- take it or leave it -- is not in any way a "buy back."

[WLJ]

In the socialist mindset everything is the govt's property to give and take as the govt pleases

[Angel Eyes]

[AJ Dual]

The economics of Colt having to work with the UAW probably doesn't help anything either.

I'm certain that chasing civilian sales would not even be a "win the battle lose the war" prospect for them financially, but a "lose the battle and lose the war" scenario.

There's no way they can compete with functional $400 AR 15's. Unless it's on fixed cost contracts with .mil and LE sales.

[MechAg94]

In the socialist mindset everything is the govt's property to give and take as the govt pleases

Including the money they money they pay you.  Occasionally you see one of those BigGov jerks slip up and say it.