Not nearly as good as Lawdog or some of the other bloggers, but maybe folks can understand it.
There has been a lot of talk concerning gun control since the latest school tragedy in Connecticut. The major network news are portraying a certain rifle as evil, and the liberal lawmakers are wanting to take this and many more guns away from the law abiding citizens of the United States. They are saying, No one needs 30 round magazines. No one needs semi-automatic firearms. No one needs assault weapons. Id like to address some of these statements.
First off, lets talk about need and what it means. Does Terry McDaniel need a 30 round magazine for his Ruger Mini-14. Right now at this very moment, no I dont need a 30 round magazine. I dont need it for hunting either. While Im not Mr. Deer Hunter by any means, one shot is all Ive needed to harvest the few deer Ive lucked into. So why should I care if the government outlaws high capacity magazines and limits me to only 5 round magazines? The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution does not mention need or hunting or other sporting purposes. It simply confirms our right to possess firearms. In all honesty, I hope I never need a high capacity magazine. I suspect there were a lot of folks wishing for them during the Watts riots and the King riots in California. In a life or death self defense situation, would you rather reload every three shots, or have a high capacity magazine? If you were old enough to watch the news during the King riots you should remember there was one group of people that did not lose life or property. They were the Korean store owners. They had weapons, and were not afraid to use them when their property was attacked. They utilized there God given right to defend life and property, while the majority of the Californians cried, Why did we lobby for the 10 day waiting period for firearm purchases? Do you remember the truck driver pulled from his truck and beaten to death? Can you admit to the possibility of a different outcome if hed been armed?
Even the most intellectual person reading this must admit: there are evil people in this world. The true monsters are few and far between, but if you are confronted by one or more you have two options. The first option: die, or even more horrible, watch your loved ones die first. The second option: defend yourself. This does not guarantee youll live, but it will increase your chances. If you choose to defend yourself what would be your weapon of choice? Would you prefer a stick, your hands, a knife or a firearm? My choice is a firearm. And I dont mean a single shot .22. I want as many rounds going toward the monster as possible and as fast as possible. I do not want to reload. When and if the monster is down and out, I still want rounds left in my firearm. A situation like this is when I need a high capacity magazine. Again, I hope I never need one, but I will always have one or more.
Semi-auto firearms seem to be as evil as high capacity magazines, according to the Feinsteins , Shumers and Cuomos of the world. They have said, No one needs to be able to fire as fast as that. Again, they are telling you and I what we need. They have no clue what we need. See the above discussion about monsters and evil.
Assault rifles in the hands of the public! How terrible. They only thing they are designed for is killing. Folks, this is a crock of bull feces. What is an assault rifle to begin with? Its roots go back to Germany, around 1944. They developed a small, light weight, select fire weapon in a medium caliber. Select fire means it can be fired one shot per pull of the trigger, or put into automatic mode, where it will fire until the trigger is released or it is out of cartridges. The idea was modified and adopted by the Russians with the AK-47, and finally by the United States with the M-16. Civilians can buy modified versions of some of these rifles. They are modified in that the select fire switch is taken out. They cannot be fired in full auto. So by definition they are not assault weapons. They are simply put, sporting rifles. And yes, the civilian version, called the AR-15, of the M-16 is a fine hunting rifle, in spite of what the Washington experts and liberal media want to think. Personally, I dont like the AR platform. It doesnt fit me. But I dont care for Fords either. That doesnt mean either should be banned. If you want an AR-15 for target shooting, for hunting, or for home defense then I absolutely support your right to have one. You would be hard pressed to find a better choice. Every gun owner in the United States needs to take this same stand. We cannot win the fight against more gun control if we are divided about what kind of guns we need or dont need.
Lets look at the fallacy of the argument saying guns are only designed to kill. A couple of years ago I attended End of Trail. This is the World Championship of Cowboy Action Shooting. I was one of just over 600 competitors. Each competitor had a minimum of 4 guns. Nearly all had more. I had 9 because I like to use different guns each day. Each competitor fired approximately 300 rounds during the match. Thats 18,000 round sent downrange. Now if the only purpose of a gun is killing, how come nobody died? I suppose you could argue that we were using Old West firearms, not modern weapons. And youd still have an invalid argument. There are many different types of shooting competitions using modern guns. Their safety record is exemplary.
The new assault weapons ban that the liberals are pushing does not even define what an assault weapon is. My Ruger 10-22 rifle and my Browning BAR .243 may fit the description as they both have detachable magazines and are semi-autos. Your favorite quail gun may fall into that category, just because it is a semi-auto.
There are somewhere around 80 million legal gun owners in the United States. We didnt kill anyone last night. We didnt rob any stores at gunpoint. We are responsible citizens of this great country. Yet, for some twisted reason the liberals think that by taking my guns and your guns away, the monster will just go away. He wont go away. The police cannot keep him away, and are not obligated to come to your house and make him go away. The role of the police is to gather evidence and inform family members of their loss. The only thing that can keep him from your door is the determination that you will do whatever it takes to make him go away, up to and including deadly force. Until then, the monsters will continue to breed, multiply, and terrorize us.
I am including two links to some suggested reading. The first one addresses the need for a gun. The second addresses the monsters within us and among us. Please take the time to read them.
http://www.seraphicpress.com/jew-without-a-gun/
http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/
I certainly wish I had the way with words that these two people have.
Terry McDaniel
To the policeman who might read this. I am not anti-cop. I just know that if you are on one side of OKC and I'm on the other side, it takes time for you to get there.
There has been a lot of talk concerning gun control since the latest school tragedy in Connecticut. The major network news are portraying a certain rifle as evil, and the liberal lawmakers are wanting to take this and many more guns away from the law abiding citizens of the United States. They are saying, No one needs 30 round magazines. No one needs semi-automatic firearms. No one needs assault weapons. Id like to address some of these statements.
First off, lets talk about need and what it means. Does Terry McDaniel need a 30 round magazine for his Ruger Mini-14. Right now at this very moment, no I dont need a 30 round magazine. I dont need it for hunting either. While Im not Mr. Deer Hunter by any means, one shot is all Ive needed to harvest the few deer Ive lucked into. So why should I care if the government outlaws high capacity magazines and limits me to only 5 round magazines? The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution does not mention need or hunting or other sporting purposes. It simply confirms our right to possess firearms. In all honesty, I hope I never need a high capacity magazine. I suspect there were a lot of folks wishing for them during the Watts riots and the King riots in California. In a life or death self defense situation, would you rather reload every three shots, or have a high capacity magazine? If you were old enough to watch the news during the King riots you should remember there was one group of people that did not lose life or property. They were the Korean store owners. They had weapons, and were not afraid to use them when their property was attacked. They utilized there God given right to defend life and property, while the majority of the Californians cried, Why did we lobby for the 10 day waiting period for firearm purchases? Do you remember the truck driver pulled from his truck and beaten to death? Can you admit to the possibility of a different outcome if hed been armed?
Even the most intellectual person reading this must admit: there are evil people in this world. The true monsters are few and far between, but if you are confronted by one or more you have two options. The first option: die, or even more horrible, watch your loved ones die first. The second option: defend yourself. This does not guarantee youll live, but it will increase your chances. If you choose to defend yourself what would be your weapon of choice? Would you prefer a stick, your hands, a knife or a firearm? My choice is a firearm. And I dont mean a single shot .22. I want as many rounds going toward the monster as possible and as fast as possible. I do not want to reload. When and if the monster is down and out, I still want rounds left in my firearm. A situation like this is when I need a high capacity magazine. Again, I hope I never need one, but I will always have one or more.
Semi-auto firearms seem to be as evil as high capacity magazines, according to the Feinsteins , Shumers and Cuomos of the world. They have said, No one needs to be able to fire as fast as that. Again, they are telling you and I what we need. They have no clue what we need. See the above discussion about monsters and evil.
Assault rifles in the hands of the public! How terrible. They only thing they are designed for is killing. Folks, this is a crock of bull feces. What is an assault rifle to begin with? Its roots go back to Germany, around 1944. They developed a small, light weight, select fire weapon in a medium caliber. Select fire means it can be fired one shot per pull of the trigger, or put into automatic mode, where it will fire until the trigger is released or it is out of cartridges. The idea was modified and adopted by the Russians with the AK-47, and finally by the United States with the M-16. Civilians can buy modified versions of some of these rifles. They are modified in that the select fire switch is taken out. They cannot be fired in full auto. So by definition they are not assault weapons. They are simply put, sporting rifles. And yes, the civilian version, called the AR-15, of the M-16 is a fine hunting rifle, in spite of what the Washington experts and liberal media want to think. Personally, I dont like the AR platform. It doesnt fit me. But I dont care for Fords either. That doesnt mean either should be banned. If you want an AR-15 for target shooting, for hunting, or for home defense then I absolutely support your right to have one. You would be hard pressed to find a better choice. Every gun owner in the United States needs to take this same stand. We cannot win the fight against more gun control if we are divided about what kind of guns we need or dont need.
Lets look at the fallacy of the argument saying guns are only designed to kill. A couple of years ago I attended End of Trail. This is the World Championship of Cowboy Action Shooting. I was one of just over 600 competitors. Each competitor had a minimum of 4 guns. Nearly all had more. I had 9 because I like to use different guns each day. Each competitor fired approximately 300 rounds during the match. Thats 18,000 round sent downrange. Now if the only purpose of a gun is killing, how come nobody died? I suppose you could argue that we were using Old West firearms, not modern weapons. And youd still have an invalid argument. There are many different types of shooting competitions using modern guns. Their safety record is exemplary.
The new assault weapons ban that the liberals are pushing does not even define what an assault weapon is. My Ruger 10-22 rifle and my Browning BAR .243 may fit the description as they both have detachable magazines and are semi-autos. Your favorite quail gun may fall into that category, just because it is a semi-auto.
There are somewhere around 80 million legal gun owners in the United States. We didnt kill anyone last night. We didnt rob any stores at gunpoint. We are responsible citizens of this great country. Yet, for some twisted reason the liberals think that by taking my guns and your guns away, the monster will just go away. He wont go away. The police cannot keep him away, and are not obligated to come to your house and make him go away. The role of the police is to gather evidence and inform family members of their loss. The only thing that can keep him from your door is the determination that you will do whatever it takes to make him go away, up to and including deadly force. Until then, the monsters will continue to breed, multiply, and terrorize us.
I am including two links to some suggested reading. The first one addresses the need for a gun. The second addresses the monsters within us and among us. Please take the time to read them.
http://www.seraphicpress.com/jew-without-a-gun/
http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/
I certainly wish I had the way with words that these two people have.
Terry McDaniel
To the policeman who might read this. I am not anti-cop. I just know that if you are on one side of OKC and I'm on the other side, it takes time for you to get there.
