[S_O_Laban]

http://www.missourisportshooting.org/ms4.htm


I happened accross this and thought some of you might be interested. Comments? I certainly hadn't thought about things in quite this way.

[ACP230]

From his mouth to God's ear!

[Oracle]

Wow. That was a really incredible speech. Makes me have some hope for the future of personal defense and the shooting sports.

[hammer4nc]

I liked John's book, UC. While this speech is interesting, it might be missing the point, IMO.

Technology marches on. Comparing civilian-available weapons in different decades, is not a valid measure of "ability to resist" an oppressive govt., is it? If he included a study of the LE/military weapons in the same timeframes, the parity would shift away from the ability of the citizen-militia to resist. If non-firearms (i.e., electronics warfare) were included in the study, even worse. So we're not as bad as UK or Australia...small consolation.

His anecdotes about VietNam/Afghanistan are well taken. However, the fact that NVA were supplied by China, and Mujahadeen were supplied by USA, played a really bigger role than gun laws that existed prior to the conflict. And these conflicts exacted a tremedous cost on the "winners".

I'm presuming the point of this speech is not just for the gun hobbyist. Its "freedom" isn't it? If we're measuring the increase/decrease of "freedom" in the USA, in the last 100 years, how about comparing overall citizen tax burden in the different decades? Growth of state and federal govt? Amount of intrusive laws on personal behavior?

Are things really getting better?

[Legionnaire]

Good read; thanks. The historical developments in firearms technology ... and their availability to shooters in this country ... is vaulable.

That said, I tend to agree with hammer4nc. From a "liberty" or "freedom" perspective, I don't think things have gotten better. The current crop of Republicans are more "big government" than the Kennedy administration and, as hammer4nc points out, the "non-firearm" weapons technology available to big brother and not to us is significant.

BUT! It's the man (or woman) and not the weapon that makes the difference in the long run.

[Jim March]

In terms of the legal stuff:

He's right. In terms of real-world legal ability to defend yourself on the street, everything went "south" (pardon the pun) starting in 1876 (Cruikshank decision). That decision is starting to come seriously unglued in the courts, and it's about time. See also:

http://www.americanminutemen.org/reinhardt.htm

The spread of decent CCW is a wonderful development.

[David Park]

Although it's definitely a different perspective, I think John Ross has a point. hammer4nc wrote: If he included a study of the LE/military weapons in the same timeframes, the parity would shift away from the ability of the citizen-militia to resist. If non-firearms (i.e., electronics warfare) were included in the study, even worse. Really? In 1932, police carried revolvers and billy clubs, and citizens in most places couldn't carry anything but a pocketknife (unless they were WASPs and friendly with the police). Today, police carry semi-autos and a variety of less-lethal weapons like pepper spray, wear bullet-resistant vests, and have backup shotguns or carbines in their cruisers. I carry a semi-auto and pepper spray, own and sometimes wear a IIIA vest, and could legally carry an unloaded shotgun or carbine in my car.

The same goes for the military. Look at the number of "evil black rifles" in private hands today, along with training available from places like Thunder Ranch. We can buy high-quality night vision and infrared laser sights over the counter. We have a large variety of communications devices available, including encrypted, anonymous email. We don't have grenades or anti-tank missiles, but terrorists have proven that bombs are not difficult to make, and no citizen-militia should try to take on tanks or Apaches in a head-to-head fight anyway. Our military is powerful, but how could they "occupy" the entire United States? They can't station a tank on every street corner or call in close-air-support in a "friendly" city. That assumes a despotic government could even get the military to obey such orders without large numbers of deserters (who could take their equipment with them). If we're measuring the increase/decrease of "freedom" in the USA, in the last 100 years, how about comparing overall citizen tax burden in the different decades? Growth of state and federal govt? Amount of intrusive laws on personal behavior? I think John Ross realizes the attack on our freedoms. The point is, even with the shift towards Big Government power, many citizens still believe in freedom, and we still have our guns. People in the UK really have no option other than to hope they can turn their country around politically (if they even want to). We still have a "last resort" that we can use if, like 227 year ago, government taxes, regulations, and intrusions into our lives become too oppressive.

[Moparmike]

Its wonderful that a firearm-owning lifestyle has become so much more available to those who desire it. Now if we could get the handgun age down to 18 like voting or repeal it all together (a friend's desire), that would be something.

[FTG-05]

Great speach!

The only thing he left out was the fact that we almost "boiled in oil" those politicians that voted for the AWB and the probably end of the AWB next year.

Albin

[Ian]

Moparmike - The 21-tear-old age limit for purchasing handguns applies only to FFLs - a nonlicensed individual may legally sell a pistol to anyone over 18. Some states have possession age limits lower than that as well. And, of course, there are no Federal age regs on cap'n'ball revolvers.

Ian (age 19, with 4 pistols)

[blades67]

HISTORY HAS SHOWN US THAT IN AMERICA, THE CULTURE OF FREEDOM ALWAYS WINS.

I think this statement is his point.

[alan]

Personally speaking, I have no great interest in owning firearms capable of selective or full automatic fire, at least I don't think so at the moment.

Having said that, given the fact that the 1934 act, among others was pure bull????, seeing the repeal of such trash is something to be much desired.

As for the degree of freedom that Americans experience today, compared to in years past, that I think is a questionable point. Nevertheless, Mr. Ross makes some very interesting comments.

If what I've somewhere seen about him having a "sequel" to Unintended Consequences in the works is correct, I can wait, however I hope that the wait won't be overly long.

[Moparmike]

Originally posted by Ian
Moparmike - The 21-tear-old age limit for purchasing handguns applies only to FFLs - a nonlicensed individual may legally sell a pistol to anyone over 18. Some states have possession age limits lower than that as well. And, of course, there are no Federal age regs on cap'n'ball revolvers.

Ian (age 19, with 4 pistols)


Really? I didnt know that. I knew I could own one, but I always thought someone would have to buy it for me, like a parent or something. Thanks for the info.

(19, no firearms)

[JShirley]

Hey, David?

Even though I couldn't "carry" it, in 1932, I could've had a howitzer legally in my house. Or any number of fully automatic weapons. Without any registration. I fail to see how we've "progressed".

[David Park]

JShirley, you could have owned a howitzer legally, but would it be practical? How much would a howitzer cost? Could you afford it in the middle of the Great Depression? Where would you buy one? What about ammunition?

Let's assume you did save your pennies, buy a howitzer and a good supply of ammo, and you and your friends practiced operating it. Now, what good will it do you? It's hard to hide from government thugs, it's not very mobile, and your possible targets are limited by the risk of collateral damage.

Of course, I agree that we should be able to own howitzers, rockets, machine guns, and the like, but if we're to fight for freedom, it will probably be an asymmetrical war. That means that, rather than howitzers, we'll need weapons like accurate long-range rifles and high-capacity deep-concealment pistols, both with quality defensive ammo. These things were basically unavailable in 1932, but as the speech points out, there are over 100 million centerfire handguns in the country today.

I think that's why John Ross is optimistic. Even though things look worse today on paper (how we gun owners normally look at things), things are much better when you consider what you can go out and actually buy, without needing several months' salary in your pocket.

BTW, regarding economic freedom, in 1932 the top tax bracket was increased to 63%. It was raised to 75% in 1935, and to 94% in 1944. :scrutiny:

[David Park]

Also, remember this: if it ever becomes time to "shoot the bastards," the law book gets tossed out the window. There are plenty of instructions out there for building silencers, etc. I figure it would be much easier to modify my FAL to be select-fire than to build a FAL from the ground up in a machine shop, to say nothing of creating cartridges from scratch.

I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to build a howitzer though, or at least a mortar. There are lots of potato guns in circulation. :p

[S_O_Laban]

Jshirley, I certainly understand what your saying, I feel the same way my self. This is just another way of looking at things in a more positive light. I think the positive attitude of his speech along with some interesting facts is what caught my attention. It is nice to see the good in things so one can keep perspective in focus. With the recent news in Alaska and Oklahoma and several other states, we SA supporters should smell blood and move in for the kill. A little optimism can be a powerfull thing.

[JShirley]

Nothing wrong with looking at things in a positive light. I will be immensely relieved if things continue to improve, and I plan on doing my part.

Building a mortar in 81 or 82mm would be the best bet for portable firepower. Acuraccy might suffer, but...hm...

I reckon anyone with a little mechanical knowhow could build a better mousetrap. The US military would ALWAYS have access to the best equipment, first, if there was an economic incentive for citizens to develop new weapons technology. Think how cool it would be to be able to hang an 81mm round on the 4th of July...

Anyway, technology for the citizen is indeed much better now than perhaps ever before. I was just thinking about that yesterday. Once upon a time, almost everyone "in the know" would be using one of a select few weapons. Today, one could use any number of high quality arms, all of them effective and suitable for the defensive user.

John, 11C (mortarman)

[Feanaro]

We have a better selection but the firearm laws might not go away unless we make them. Just because the situation is looking good doesn't mean we should think it will turn out that way and give up.

[Jim March]

We gunnies are finally starting to benefit from the revolution in equal protection reform that started in 1954.

Alaska just became the first state in 100 years to "go Vermont".

[S_O_Laban]

In my mind, Alaska has jumed ahead of Vemont because of the option of getting the permit so reciprocity is avalible from other states:D

[Kreed]

The text of this speech has also been posted to FreeRepublic.com and gotten a lot of good commentary there, as well:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/929857/posts

One fellow emailed John Ross to clear up any conjecture that JR actually wrote this, since it does seem to be overly optimistic, and here is what JR had to say:

***

Yes, it's mine. I think it's interesting that some are calling me a "sellout" because I point out the good and not just the bad. If you think I'm a sellout, ask yourself this: If Brady, Schumer, Clinton, Feinstein, etc. read my article, do you think they would be PLEASED about what it said?

Yes, the police can have a 14" M16 and you have to make do with a semi. But guess what, a 20" AR-15 is a BETTER GUN. It has a better trigger, is more controllable, and the velocity is much higher. Yes, you ought to be able to own anything, but the fact that you can't doesn't change the fact that:

1. There are many great guns now that weren't available at any price not long ago. S&W's .500 Magnum--if you wanted to craft a response to the HUD Agreement that says "???? you, strong letter to follow" could *you* dream up anything better? And a 27-ounce .44 mag? Meet my new carry gun!;

2. Ammo is much cheaper and better;

3. There has been a sea change in sentiment among the public, especially women, regarding Right-To-Carry, which is rapidly becoming law in every state;

4. The best legal minds are now on our side and up to speed. Silviera VS Lockyer may be the case that restores everything.

News Flash: Guns and gunowners have ALWAYS been under assault since at least the end of WWI. Read your history. When the .357 came out in 1935 we got the same BS about "No one needs a gun this powerful." Now we have it in an 11-ounce J-frame. There are always people who try to chill your rights. That's reality, ever since the founding of our country. Don't whine about it, spit on your hands and get in the fight.

Post this if you want.

John Ross