In what might be the most anti-gun Op-Ed I’ve read in a long while, a columnist for Bloomberg.com’s recent screed on the AR-15 uses both half-truths and long-proven lies to paint a picture of America’s favorite rifle being the cause of nearly all the world’s evils.

Opinion Columnist and Harvard law professor Noah Feldman’s piece of utter trash journalism is behind a paywall, and I would suggest that you not waste your money on it. In fact, I did just so you wouldn’t have to.

The column starts with a whopper of a headline that Feldman apparently believes is now the “truth” since one federal court has declared it so. “AR-15s Are Weapons Of War. A Federal Judge Just Confirmed It,” the headline screams.

The subhead then doubles down on stupid: “The rifle that might have killed Donald Trump and was used to murder children in Uvalde has nothing to do with self-defense.”

While the author might believe these things to be true, just because the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that way doesn’t make it so. In fact, plenty of other courts have ruled just the opposite. That doesn’t, however, stop Feldman from building on the faulty premise of Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III’s written opinion and spouting more lies and half-truths.

Here are a few of his more egregious statements.

Bragging on the “masterful” opinion, Feldman wrote: “It lays out a roadmap for the Supreme Court to follow by explaining clearly that AR-15s are favored by terrorists and other mass shooters; that they are not suitable for self-defense; and that the framers of the Constitution would have welcomed their regulation, just as they embraced laws that protected Americans against analogous dangers.”

In truth, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation rifles of any kind were used in less than 3% of firearm murders in 2020. Like other semi-auto firearms, they shoot one round with each pull of the trigger and are not machine guns. They are far less powerful than deer rifles, and they are extremely useful for self-defense, particularly home defense, as is proven many times each year. To say they are “not suitable” for self-defense is utter foolishness—unless the author believes no guns are useful for that purpose, which could be his opinion.

Feldman continued: “The key starting point of Wilkinson’s opinion is its correct observation that when the late Justice Antonin Scalia initiated modern Second Amendment jurisprudence in the 2008 case called District of Columbia v. Heller, he based the right on personal self-defense. In truth, Scalia was pulling a historical fast one: The actual original purpose of the amendment, written into its explicit text, was to ensure that citizens could participate in well-regulated state militias.’

This is also complete B.S. While Feldman and other gun-ban advocates can continue to scream about militias, the highest court in the land has found the Second Amendment to protect an individual right in at least three different cases. Just because Feldman doesn’t believe it doesn’t mean it’s not current law.

Here’s another doozy: “Wilkinson is not making a policy point but a constitutional one: AR-15s aren’t covered by the right to bear arms because they aren’t used in self-defense.” To say that they “aren’t used in self-defense” means nobody has ever used one for that purpose. In fact, it happens frequently. It’s far easier for me to prove that they are sometimes used in self-defense than for Feldman to prove that they are never used for that purpose.

Here’s one more: “The opinion also makes short work of the idea, adopted recently by a federal district court judge in New Jersey, that AR-15s have a self-defense purpose because some people keep them at home in the belief that they could use them against intruders. Wilkinson describes why AR-15s are unsuitable for self-defense at home: Their bullets go through everything. If you tried to use an assault weapon against an intruder, you could easily kill your family and neighbors. The big magazines associated with the weapons are also not appropriate for self-defense, he adds.”

OMG. Their bullets “go through everything”? Has the judge not heard of hollow-point bullets or frangible rounds? Additionally, any gun not used carefully and safely could kill a neighbor or family member. That’s why safety is always rule number one in gun ownership. It’s clear the judge, nor the columnist, know anything about firearms.

And how can “big magazines” not be “appropriate for self-defense”? Just because a mag holds 30 rounds doesn’t mean you have to shoot them all at once. Of course, standard-capacity magazines that gun-haters want to ban are useful for any use, including self-defense. If not, people wouldn’t own them!

In the end, the opinion written in the case contains more utter B.S. than it does facts. And I have no doubt that should the case ever make its way to the Supreme Court, the justices there will agree with me, not them.

Here’s something to think about, Mr. Feldman. Just because one rogue court is going against the U.S. Supreme Court and upholding a ban on AR-15s doesn’t mean that their written opinion has any basis in fact. And in this case, it largely doesn’t.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

78 COMMENTS

  1. The Republicans need to rightly respond to Roombas call for term limits for USSC judges with similar limits on Federal Judges, Federal Politicians (Senators and Representatives) and federal department heads…LOL

  2. Ok so let me lay this out as a fellow member of his tribe, Noah Feldman is the wealthy failson of a successful Wall Street banker. He has lived exclusively in highly protected urban enclaves and for his protection, has been taught to fear both minorities and anyone from a rural area. He was given his place at Harvard because Harvard discriminates against more capable non-white applicants in order to keep legacies (and their massive endowments) flowing in. This miserable little animal does more to promote antisemitism than a legion of Klansmen ever could.

    • Harvard law professor – enough said.

      Feldman is just another who would have meekly shuffled off to the ovens. Whispering pseudo intellectual BS at the guards.

    • Well, I’m afraid of rural people too! I’m afraid that if I act the fool and carry on like a barbarian, they will deal with me directly, rather than calling the law. With the law, I have rights. With the barbarians, it’s anyone’s guess. I visited down in Deliverance, Tennessee one time, and Granny Clampett started eyeballing me. I asked her what she was looking at, she says she was deciding which pot to cook me in. I got out of Deliverance, and haven’t gone back to rural country again! I much prefer my Merry Olde England, where I can pass myself off as a Master With Arms. The chumps around here actually believe me when I tell them I know how to use guns, bazookas, stingray missiles, and boomer rangs. They never look at me out of the corner of their eye, obviously thinking that I’m a liar, like those barbarians in Tennessee.

  3. Time to let them in on the big secret . . . the 2A always was and always will be about “weapons of war,” and we get to have them.

      • Heller mooted Miller’s reference to arms suitable for military use. Heller states the peoples right to keep and bear arms is independent of a militia.

        • If so that sucks as it blunts the argument we should have access to EVERYTHING the military does.

    • The 2nd Amendment clearly says “Right of the People”. And it doesn’t say ANYTHING about hunting.

    • Build,

      IMNSHO, perhaps the STUPIDEST argument the Leftist/fascist gun-grabbing hoplophobes make! “Civilians shouldn’t have ‘weapons of war’!!” completely misses the facts that (a) that’s EXACTLY what the Founders intended (read the damn Federalist (and Anti-Federalist) papers, ya morons!!), and (ii) at the time of the Revolution and the adoption of the BoR, EVERY damn civilian had access to a firearm equivalent to (or BETTER than, i.e., Kentucky Long Rifle) the “Brown Bess” musket which was STANDARD ISSUE for every damn Euroweenie standing army that existed. Americans were allowed, nay ENCOURAGED and subsidized, to have actual warships, and state-of-the-art (in the 1776 – 1992 era) artillery.

      The ONLY damn thing that horrible Miller “decision” got right was that the 2A was INTENDED to protect civilians’ right to meet government force (whether foreign OR domestic) on equal terms.

      The only thing worse than the stupidity of the Leftist/fascist gun-grabbing arguments is their absolute intentional, willful historical ignorance. But, then, for Leftist/fascists, “willful ignorance” is a feature, not a bug.

  4. Oy vey Feldman! Talk about a schmuck. I bet all those Jewish folks herded into cattle car’s WISH they had a real rifle🙄😧

    • Or, the “Never Forget” crowd that kinda forgot before Oct, 7th. I still cannot understand how the populace of Israel was so unprepared and unarmed.

      • They are packing a lot of commies over there. And there’s a lot of voting folk that just can’t believe those nice Muslims are really gonna try to manifest the Koran on them.

        And no 2nd Amendment…

        (As explained to me by a secular Israeli of Arab descent, pre-Munich. He made a lot of accurate predictions, that have aged quite well.)

        • A common mistake is to project one’s values onto others, often to one’s own detriment. Pro tip: when people say they want to wipe your existence from the face of the planet, believe them.

          • The Koran claims that Allah created the Jews, and gave them their Law. It further states because they are disobedient, specifically that they violate the 1st Commandment, Is la m basically owns the Jews – and the Koran tasks its followers with ensuring that Jews submit to them. The implication is that an independent Jewry might block the entry of all Muslims to Paradise.

            Peace between Jews/Israel and Muslims NOT GOING TO HAPPEN while Islam exists. Unless the Jews give up all selfdefense, pay the vig and relinquish all lands. This shit started in 632. Note that it is not really about extermination.

            It AMAZES how few of us infidels understand this history…

      • Build,

        Yeah, they were stupidly unawake (and with as good as the Israeli IDF/intelligence services are, they dropped the ball, big time), but . . . we, and a lot of others, get a lot of the blame, too. The West, and the US in particular, has been lobbying Israel to ‘moderate’ its response since the damn 1948 War of Independence. They shouldn’t have listened, but we had the power of the pocketbook, so they did.

        Not letting the Israelis off the hook (they should have known better – what the hell does “Never again!” mean, anyway???), but we were more than complicit, and the Euroweenies have been scandalous in their ongoing support for Leftist/fascist authoritarian regimes. So, call them out for being asleep at the switch, but we gave them large doses of Ambien.

  5. My ready rifle is loaded with Winchester 55 gr Ballistic Silvertip. A varment round designed to expand rapidly. I doubt they will exit a human torso. Family is not a concern, I live alone, but I do have neighbors in close proximity.

    • What is your take on Varmint Grenades for self defense? I have heard hide hunters out West say they are the ultimate for hides – no tracking, 1 little hole, no exit, no ricochet. But totally wrong for deer.

      The silver tips end up under the hide on the far side (308), but the rem equivalent to silver tips in 5.56 sometimes pass through. Not a huge sample, and a while back.

      • Buffalo Bore has a Deer Grenade round. I’ve used them in .44 and 30-06. They do a number on deer, I’ve taken them in both calibers, though they’re not as accurate as some other rounds. Great for woods hunting, and I did harvest a pretty nice buck with my Super Redhawk .44 w/ Deer Grenade round when I was recovering from heart surgery and unable to sho-ot rifle or bow. I’m better now.

    • XZX, I don’t know anything about the varmint grenades. I use the 168 gr Ballistic Silvertip in 308 for deer. And I’ve shot lot of deer with them. All but one exited, but that’s what I want. The exit wound is what really leaves the blood trail. Of course, I always shoot the does in the head so no tracking. I’m still counting those as exit wounds as I’ve never recovered a bullet from one, but there’s never been much of the head to recover either.

      • They are all copper, made by Barnes – couldn’t find them last I looked, but want a few to play with – given the name, I guess just searching for them online could be dangerous :p

        Supposedly perfect for up to coyote sized varmints. I am mostly interested from a safety perspective. I suspect drywall, maybe even cardboard, will turn them to dust.

        Idle curiosity…

      • Is Feldman evil and calculating, or stupid? It doesn’t matter I guess. Dupes don’t tend to catch on until the trap is sprung. And maybe not even then.

        • Not sure that is necessarily an or question but unfortunately your next two sentences are spot on and go along with easier to fool a person than to make them realize they have been fooled.

  7. Interestingly; the framers of the Constitution didn’t have a problem with my then not antique, blunderbuss with a barrel of one-and-a-half inch bore. Just one shot can launch the ballistic equivalent of a 100 round magazine from an AR-15, twenty-two caliber rodent rifle. The flared muzzle really doesn’t enhance pattern spread like a spreader choke or rifled barrel. However; the funnel barrel makes it quicker and easier to reload.

    • That was the idea of the funnel barrel on a blunderbuss. Rapid reloading. Not shot spread.

      • They were likely going for shot spread – didn’t work, but made reloads easier, so the smart money kept doing it. Plus most users prolly did not know it did not work…

        Marketing rules, if you don’t put the wrong picture on the can.

        Ya gotta remember, those were the days when they tried square bullets – hoping for special powers against non-Christians. Naval/military users apparently avoided the ridiculous exaggerated bell seen in cartoons of Pilgrims hunting turkeys.

        I know this because I read it somewhere.

  8. Decidion of the judge who happens to agree with his prejudice is TRUTH, but SC Justice he disagrees with “pulled a fast one”. Very selective appeal to authority fallacy.

  9. “Well Regulated” had to do with being highly trained & practiced in loading, aiming & firing muskets, which were largely useless in other than massed firing.

    Every shooter had to be very efficient & quick to keep up with their fellow shooters.
    “Well Regulated” had NOTHING to do with rules, licenses or registration.

  10. Bloomberg and the disarmament crowd have spread more BS than the honey wagon at the stud farm.

  11. Personally, I believe AR-15s are a bit of an overkill for home defense, but don’t let me stop you. Do as you will.

    Even for multiple attackers during home invasions, if you shoot Deshawn in the noggin with a .357 magnum and splatter his brains all over the wall, Latrell and Shaniqua are gonna scatter like the r!oa!c!he!s they are. Remember that old guy in Norco, CA who used a shotgun to defend his liquor store against one of the usual suspects wielding an AR-15?? All it took was one shot, and the perp ran screaming like a little bi!tc!h.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrh8Ra0W0-I

    • *And* they parked in a handicap spot!
      Man, if only the security cam caught the front of the vehicle showing no H-tag they would be sooo in for it.

    • johnnyboy is a dumbfuk bigot whose vision of the boogeyman is Black. As long as he keeps thinking that the jackazz is setting himself up to be a batch for some lily white boogeyman.

      • For random violent crime he is correct. For the lily white (assuming you mean non-hispanic?) The range for violent crime is 12 to 35% vs the 50-60% for blacks. That this is seen even in predominantly white states I think he will be fine unless he is very unlucky. But do simp for your pets at the expense of logic or reason you toe tapping mealy mouthed gutess gun talker 😆

      • I agree that we the “little people” shouldn’t let ourselves get divided. There are some powerful and unscrupulous people who are trying their best to create exactly these kinds of divisions.

      • I was wrong about you. You are actually a hominid precursor with a 55 IQ, not 85 as I said the other day.

      • Debbie, Debbie, Debbie…. Unfortunately cameras tell the truth. Over and over again. It wasn’t “dumfk Johnies” opinion, it was a realtime shot of a miscreant with a rifle trying to knock over a liquor store. He’s just lucky he didn’t drt. The owner called his bluff, and the miscreant thought “holy fk, this old man ain’t playin’ “. He bailed. Which is typical. FYI..I live in a basically ” lily white” town..an extremely LIBERAL town..Chicago and Memphis games are not played here. There’s a certain segment that pulls this crap all the time, but not in my town.

  12. AR-15’s are not weapons of war. they are common use semi auto civilian firearms, SCOTUS confirmed it. SCOTUS trumps your delusional judge.

  13. remember the pregnant woman who saved her kids and husband and her self and unborn child from certain death at the hands of multiple armed home invaders by using her AR-15 to engage them?

    yep, it happened (can’t find the link right now),and the thousands each year who use their AR-15 for home defense.

    The AR’s sure came in handy for them.

      • sure sounds like that AR-15 was not a ‘weapon of war’, but rather a common use semi-auto rifle used many times a year for protection by ordinary law abiding citizens. used very effectively and suitably for home defense to defend against the very threat this ignorant judge and Bloomberg facilitate and embolden.

        ill bet it seems pretty suitable for home defense for this family.

  15. I will never understand how these people can simultaneously hold these thoughts:

    An AR-15 is super-extra deadly.
    An AR-15 is no good for self defense. (Wouldn’t being super-extra deadly make it ideal?)

    People shouldn’t own a “weapon of war” (I know, I know it is not really one and yes, we are supposed to have a right to weapons of war but, whatever.)
    The 2A means you can only own guns to participate in a militia. (Wouldn’t that require owning at least one “weapon of war”? Lemme get an M-16)

    You can’t hunt with an AR-15 because it is too powerful.
    Hunt all you want with a rifle chambered in 300 Win Mag as long as it has a walnut stock and a scope on it. (??? How do they not know?)

    One thirty round magazine is an existential threat to mankind.
    Three ten round magazines are fine.

    • Haha. Well said. l think they used to believe all that stuff simultaneously, bur now they’re just being toxic. As to how they do it,
      l don’t know. The Progressive brain works in mysterious ways.

      I am sure they never made a living doing things that being illogical and oblivious to reality can get you killed at.

    • As well as “weapons of war belon on foreign battlefields, nor our streets” and “are designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible”, BUT every “ban” has an exception for law enforcement (same law enforcement who need to get defunded for racism, inability to confront the mentally ill w/o escalating, etc.)

  16. BREAKING 2A NEWS: MAJOR FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF GUN OWNER.

    The US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in NYC has ruled for a CT gun owners in a lawsuit brought against a CT police officer. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner explains how this decision involving qualified immunity impacts your 2A rights.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hZUN-HiurQ

  20. Maryland’s gun ban law expected before SCOTUS ahead of IL > https://www.advantagenews.com/news/local/maryland-s-gun-ban-law-expected-before-scotus-ahead-of-il/article_729502c8-5686-11ef-a46f-6b68bcddb03e.html

    “Todd Vandermyde, a gun rights advocate and consultant for plaintiffs in one of Illinois’ challenges against the Land of Lincoln’s gun and magazine ban, said Maryland’s ruling is so bad it helps Second Amendment advocates heading to the Supreme Court.

    ‘It just so flies in the face of the common use test, modern guns are protected, all the things that have been reiterated through [previous Supreme Court precedent], I think this thing is just so bad that they’re going to take it,’ Vandermyde told The Center Square.”

  23. It’s frustrating to see such a lack of understanding in mainstream media about firearms and their usage.It’s important for these debates to be based on facts, and this piece does a great job of calling out misinformation. I appreciate the straightforward analysis presented here.

  24. “might have” not “almost”…that is before I even got into the article.

    The Left’s biggest disappoinment is that the CIA and FBI didn’t recruit a better shot.

  25. “Weapons of war” are part of the entire category of “Arms”, and are protected by the second amendment.

    The founders INTENDED to protect the right of the people to keep and bear ALL arms. No type exclusion exists in the text AND tradition of the constitution.

  26. Don’t get racist now…you are discriminating since all fear riddled sissy “intellectuals” want gun control. A point to consider is lot of evolutionary pressure to be smart has been put on Jews: if you didn’t run soon enough or far enough you did not live to reproduce…the opposite happens with slaves, smart ones are killed.

    Naiive fools with no real world experience should be ignored

  28. What a shock! An Ivy League professor displays not only neat-total historical ignorance AND complete stupidity about firearms and self-defense, AND an incredibly biased “understanding” of the 2A and self-defense!!!! Quelle surprise!!!!

    And in other news, water is wet, fire will burn you, and Leftist/fascists are authoritarian idiots. Yes, his column is moronic or perhaps intentionally dishonest – again, why is that a surprise??? But DON’T argue with gun-grabbing, anti-liberty Leftist/fascists using THEIR rules or characterizations – that is a giant mistake.

    “Self-defense” is an inherently personal thing (note the use of “self” in the description???). To even entertain discussion about “appropriate” self-defense weapons is to yield a MAJOR point of argument . . . that decision is ALWAYS situational and personal. And I may disagree with someone else’s choice, and I have the right to disagree . . . but NOT the right to overrule or regulate it. If someone suffers from severe arthritis or is particularly diminutive, recoil may be a major issue to them, and a .22 may be all they feel comfortable with using for self-defense. That it wouldn’t be MY choice is not the point; I’M NOT THE ONE MAKING THE CHOICE.

    If someone is an experienced shooter, if they don’t know enough to make up their own damn mind, my input isn’t likely to be helpful. If someone is a noob, I don’t initially even entertain the discussion of “self-defense” – the first question is, “Have you shot firearms before, and if so which ones and how often?”. Usually that ends with me offering to take them to a local range with which I am familiar, and letting them try several of mine. I always start a noob with a .22 rifle and pistol (my 10/22 rifle and Mk IV Hunter pistol are perfect for that), and work from there.

    And whether an AR platform rifle is “appropriate” for self-defense is an equally stupid question – “Appropriate for whom, and for use where, exactly???” The self-defense choices of a healthy farmer, who shoots varmints on the regular, and lives a hundred yards from his nearest neighbor, is totally different from is and should be totally different from a diminutive senior citizen with arthritis, living in a small apartment with neighbors on every side, through thin drywall. Familiarity is also important; a firearm that someone ELSE thinks is inappropriate, but with which the person is familiar and comfortable, may be ideal for THEM, in their situation (a weapon you are comfortable using is ALWAYS a better choice that a weapon someone ELSE thinks is “better”.

    Yes, as a gun owner, I have opinions and preferences about self-defense weapons, and if someone ASKS me for my opinion, I’ll share it and explain why . . . and if they disagree, that’s their RIGHT (hey, THEY are responsible for how they deploy the weapon, and the results thereof). If they don’t ask me my opinion, I am free to mouth off about it all I want (the 1A is just as absolute as the 2A), and . . . I deserve to be ignored.

    But even allowing a debate over “is this an APPROPRIATE weapon” for self-defense is a stupid concession. A reasoned discussion, among people actually willing to think about the subject and seek information, about “are there better choices for YOU?”, is to be encouraged.

    If it were a rational universe, people who engage in those arguments would be ignored and/or scorned and mocked (like we do to MajorLiar). Your “best” self-defense weapon is that weapon you feel comfortable deploying in moments of danger or potential crisis (acknowleging that people should also continue to be open to education about better alternatives ON THEIR OWN TERMS).

    This ain’t rocket surgery, folks.

  29. Feldman, and that federal judge, assume there is some kind of dichotomy between weapons of war, and those useful for self-defense. I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised at soft-handed lawprofs not knowing this, but the purpose of a soldier’s rifle in modern war is primarily self-defense. This is basic infantry doctrine. Military commanders do not rely on individual weapons for inflicting mass casualties on the enemy, not since the redcoats lined up shoulder to shoulder for volley musket fire. Napoleon’s advances in field artillery marked the beginning of the end of the soldier’s personal weapon as an implement of mass destruction. The machineguns of WWI placed the final seal on that chapter of history.

    This is why police are issued semiautomatic rifles and nobody bats an eyelash – because they are effective tools for the defense of self and others.

  31. As the author states, law professor Feldman is clueless when bloviating on 2nd Amendment issues. He is ignorant, hasn’t read the complete majority opinion in Heller, McDonald, Caetano & Bruen (has SFB) or blowing smoke into the face of the uninformed. The lie told by anti 2nd Amendment inferior court judges is that protected arms per Heller are those suitable for self defense. They deliberately ignore the whole of the Heller opinion. They extract self defense from the following “in common use for lawful purposes such as self defense”. I doubt that a professor with a JD would misinterpret the text. They deliberately misquote too justify their hoplophobia & mislead the uninformed.

Comments are closed.