Quote of the day—Adam Winkler

Focusing on assault weapons played right into the hands of the NRA, which has for years been saying that Obama wanted to ban guns. Gun control advocates ridiculed that idea—then proposed to ban the most popular rifle in America.

Adam Winkler
Professor of Law
UCLA School of Law
April 17, 2013
Who Killed Gun Control? The gun-control bill is dead. Why?
[No one has ever accused the gun control people of being too logical, smart, or internally consistent.

Even in Winkler’s own article there is some inconsistency. You would think that as a law professor he would know that the Heller decision says that weapons in common use are protected. Therefore when in the context of the “assault weapon ban” he says, “The courts have … approved of restrictions on assault rifles” you have to wonder if his brain is working right, because he also says the ban covered “the most popular rifle in America”.


As near as I can tell “gun controller” is synonymous with “crap for brains” so what should I expect?

H/T to Thirdpower for the email.—Joe]


15 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Adam Winkler

  1. Statistically, just looking at Winkler’s title “professor” there’s about a 97% chance that his brain is deeply dysfunctional. When you get past that first word, to the “of law” part you’re into the 98 to 99% range, but when you reach the UCLA bit you’ve clinched the 100% mark.

    Forgive him. He’s been so thoroughly sequestered from reality, and so thoroughly programmed for so many years that it would be quite impressive if he could string three sentences together without some major breakdown of logic.

  2. There are 300,000,000 guns in America yet only about 1,000,000 of them are AR-15s. Is that common use? Seems if they were really in common use, at least 10% of the guns would be AR-15s.

    • Let’s try a comparison:
      A printing press design that has a somewhat different configuration than other printing presses on the market is produced. Many companies produce presses using the design and after a period of time this design represents 1/3 of 1% of all the printing presses in use.
      By your “logic” it would be “okay” to ban* this particular printing press design because it is “not in common use.”

      *Yes, you asked “Is that common use?” and didn’t use the word “ban” but you asked it in the context of a discussion on bans.

      • I am commenting on the “common use” terminology in Heller, not about banning anything.

        It seems to me, “common use” would mean there is more than 1/3 of 1% of something.

        • There are millions of AR15 variants owned privately. Millions more AK47 variants. Millions more FAL, SKS, M1A / M14, M1 Garand, HK93, and more, when you include the minor variants on each. There were nearly 1.5 million Remington 742 Woodsmaster semi-auto rifles (mostly chambered in .30-06, the same as the M1 Garand), made, but they have a removable box magazine like an M14/M1A, and they are more powerful than any of the other things I listed there, except the M1, a pre-WW II full-sized battle-rifle. I’d say “many millions of owners” is pretty poplar. As a parallel: the Ford F-150 is very popular, but nowhere near a majority of vehicle owners have one. Would you argue that the F-150 (and similar trucks like the Toyota Tacoma, Chevy pickups, etc) are not “in common usage?”

    • Since there’s way more than 300 different guns, (heck, there are probably more than 300 different gun manufacturers throughout the course of vaguely modern history), capturing 1/3rd of 1% of the total market seems like a pretty good shot at “in common use” to me.

      I dunno, do you know of another firearm in more common use? (Possibly the 1911, but, of course, it’s also had longer to make market penetration as well.)

      • That’s the thing…. I don’t believe any particular model of a gun could be considered “common use.” The broad categories “Handguns, shotguns, rifles” would fit “common use” — but not individual guns like the AR-15.

          • An AR-15 is a rifle but all rifles aren’t AR-15s.

            In the Heller decision, “common use” was applied to a broad category of guns: Handguns. The justices didn’t say anything about bans that relate to specific models (like the ban that exists on certain handguns in the 1968 Gun Control Act).

          • An AR-15 is a rifle but all rifles aren’t AR-15s.

            In the Heller decision, “common use” was applied to a broad category of guns: Handguns. The justices didn’t say anything about bans that relate to specific models (like the ban that exists on certain handguns in the 1968 Gun Control Act).

            This is sophistry. Both as a model and as a type – semi-automatic rifle – the AR-15 more than fits the definition of “in common use”. You are simply trying to twist semantics to reach your preconceived goal.

        • Ubu —

          Your attempts at semantic hair splitting remind me of the “Young Earth” fundie Creationists who want to talk about “species” versus “kinds” to explain how Noah fit all the animals on the Ark without a blender. . .

        • For that matter, by your definition, NO firearm was in “common use” at the time of the WRITING of the Second Amendment — because no single gun maker built identical models that comprised 10% of the available numbers of guns — not even 10% of GOVERNMENT SPECIFICATION MUSKETS would have met that definition of “common use”.

          The question is NOT, “are Brand X, Model Y (with specific option packages A, B, & C)” a significant share of teh market”, but rather, are semiautomatic rifles with detatchable magazines, bearing features similar to those found on the absolute majority of service rifles fielded today such as pistol grips, muzzle devices, etc., “in common use”.

  3. Nitpicking is the best way to avoid facing basic principles, among with is the notion of the power residing in the people rather than the government, and that of self defense as a key component of the right to life. The words “…shall not be infringed” are pretty straight forwards as well, so by all means let’s avoid such clarity. Evil needs complexity and confusion as its hiding places, and so the simple truth must be avoided at all cost.

    Then again, if we apply the simple truth, then the personal arms we decide to keep and bear become none of the government’s business whatsoever– There is no argument to be had other than people telling each other how they’re going to impose their hate and coercion on one hand, verses our defense of liberty on the other.

    I’m ready for that argument. Look at me– This is my serious face, and I will not back down. Take your bullshit elsewhere.

  4. The awb would have banned more than just the ar15 – it would have banned almost every semi automatic firearm with a detachable magazine – which would have included many semiautomatic handguns used by peaceable citizens for self defense.

    The question you should be asking, ubu, is how many of those 300 million guns in the US are semi automatic firearms, not just the ar15 alone.

Comments are closed.