"From one gun owner to another"?!?!

[the pistolero]

From the Central Kentucky News-Journal:

Having owned guns and been an active hunter for more than 60 years, I feel qualified to speak on the subject of guns.

Why do I own a gun in the first place? I can think of only three possible reasons:

1. To go hunting.

2. To use for target practice.

3. For self-defense.

I can't think of any other reason - can you? That being the case, why do we gun owners need an assault weapon? Is it just for kicks? Isn't it time we stepped up and told the National Rifle Association to take the lead in calling for a ban on the manufacture of all automatic and assault weapons of every caliber?

During World War II, a manufacturer had to have a Defense Order to produce anything for use by the armed forces. If we reinstated such a requirement, we could eliminate the manufacture or importation of these "toys" except for armed service or police use and put an end to multiple slayings like Virginia Tech and Columbine.

NRA could expand its membership and win over many anti-gun folks by taking this lethal bull by the horns.

The NRA needs to hear it from us gun owners. Let's call, write or e-mail them at: National Rifle Association of America, 11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030; (800) 672-3888; https://www.nrahq.org/contact.asp.

John P. Hansel

Keene, N.H.

 

[security6]

Did anyone else think it was odd that the writer is from New Hampshire, and it is a Kentucky newspaper?

I love that he is "qualified" to write about guns, yet he calls to ban guns that were not used at Virginia Tech, so we can avoid "another Virginia Tech." I'm not sure if he is just ignorant about guns, illogical, or both.

 

[Chad]

Yeah, got an alert on that article yesterday.
We know that attitude is out there, but this guy is nobody.
What I mean by that is that he's a guy who needs a good dose of facts from an enlightened friend, as opposed to a Zumbo action.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

I can't think of any other reason - can you? That being the case, why do we gun owners need an assault weapon? Is it just for kicks? Isn't it time we stepped up and told the National Rifle Association to take the lead in calling for a ban on the manufacture of all automatic and assault weapons of every caliber?

They arent real assault rifles. Apparently hes just that ignorant. Autos are already banned from 86 on.

If we reinstated such a requirement, we could eliminate the manufacture or importation of these "toys" except for armed service or police use and put an end to multiple slayings like Virginia Tech and Columbine.

And this is different than now, how? Can I go to Colt and buy an M4 carbine or even a 25 year old M16A2? NO!

WHAT THE HELL would the armed services and police WANT with fake assault rifles that only fire semi-auto? Not a damn thing! These fake assault rifle basically replaced the real thing because of the ban/being a pain in the ass to get anyway.

This guy needs to be written a letter. I think hes just your typical idiot 'Zumbo' type that doesnt realize these arent the carbines that Al-Qeuda is using. They use arms made by the Sovet/Russian and Chinese military. NOT some semi auto Colt made for Americans.

Why do I own a gun in the first place? I can think of only three possible reasons:

1. To go hunting.

2. To use for target practice.

3. For self-defense.

4. Military Reenactment (raises hand)

5. Protection against tyrant governments

6. Foreign Invasions

 

[BrianB]

Great questions!

This should be a good thread. Personally, I don't think it's right for law abiding citizens to be outgunned by the bad guys that exist out there.
BG's always seem to do whatever, breaking all the laws that exist anyway.

Your third reason "self defense" is valid. In my mind, we are defending against 3 potential groups--Criminals wishing to do us bodily harm, enemies invaders of our country, and against tyrannical governments.

In a protracted gunfight against a criminal adversary (in my home, on my land) I would just rather have the extra 2-4 rounds in my handgun, shotgun, or whatever. You better believe that the enemies won't give you a fair fight. It's strange that the assault weapons bans focus on the "scariest looking weapons" rather than the post powerful and dangerous. In my area, a 6 shot semi-auto shotgun is considered an "assault weapon."

My 2 cents...gotta pop some popcorn...

 

[jpk1md]

Reason 7: Because as a law abiding citizen I am exercising my 2A rights. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[longeyes]

The one he leaves out is the one the statists never mention. Of course.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

Reason 7: Because as a law abiding citizen I am exercising my 2A rights. Nothing more, nothing less.

Goes without saying. No further explanation needed.
The guy is probably just a snob rich hunter.

 

[ptmmatssc]

During World War II, a manufacturer had to have a Defense Order to produce anything for use by the armed forces. If we reinstated such a requirement, we could eliminate the manufacture or importation of these "toys" except for armed service or police use and put an end to multiple slayings like Virginia Tech and Columbine.

Joke right? VT killer used standard pistols and columbine used sawed off shotguns and pistol (I believe) . Neither used "military" weapons .

I can't think of any other reason - can you? That being the case, why do we gun owners need an assault weapon? Is it just for kicks? Isn't it time we stepped up and told the National Rifle Association to take the lead in calling for a ban on the manufacture of all automatic and assault weapons of every caliber?

Does he realize that production of automatic weapons for civilians ended many years ago? And "assault weapons"? Isn't assault an action ? "just for kicks"? Since when does one need to provide a "need" for a constitutional right? i have yet to see limitations in the constitution on the RKBA .

NRA could expand its membership and win over many anti-gun folks by taking this lethal bull by the horns.

"Lethal bull" ? So his firearm is less deadly than mine? does it shoot nerf balls or something?

Man , some gun owners just don't get it .

 

[BrianB]

The Swiss have the same 3 motivations/avocations with their firearms...and they ALL own "assault weapons." They also enjoy a ridiculously low violent crime rate...and have NEVER been invaded.

Our Founding Fathers studied their example in forming our 2nd amendment.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

Joke right? VT killer used standard pistols and columbine used sawed off shotguns and pistol (I believe) . Neither used "military" weapons .

The colmbine guys used 2 TEC-9 clones (barf) and a shotgun. Not exactly military tech.

 

[jeepmor]

Is this guy related to Zumbo? How does an AR15 or AK style gun that you and I can buy differ in operation from any other semiautomatic rifle with detachable magazines. Oh, that's right, it doesn't, it's just painted black and has a different stock.

You think these liberals are whining now, imagine their cries when the guns get taken away and the tryants step up. Why do these folks simultaneously cry about the inadequacies of the government and yet beg that same government to solve the problems they are whining about. Sorry, I'm ranting, I'll stop now.

 

[qbpc]

So all the news on the south boarder about the BG drug dealers having Browning 50 cal machine guns on trucks, full auto weapons and having all our boarder guards out gunned does not matter. If the police is out gunned and they want to take away our even lesser guns does not make any sense. So a semi auto rifle IMHO is a self defense weapon.

 

[the pistolero]

You think these liberals are whining now, imagine their cries when the guns get taken away and the tryants step up. Why do these folks simultaneously cry about the inadequacies of the government and yet beg that same government to solve the problems they are whining about. Sorry, I'm ranting, I'll stop now.

Not a rant, jeepmor, that's a perfectly legitimate question that needs to be asked of those who fancy themselves liberals but want to disarm the people. Made me think of what Jim Kenefick said over at moorewatch.com

Hey Mikey, wanna know the number one reason Bush could never pull off what Hitler pulled off, you **** moron?

WE HAVE GUNS, YOU IDIOT. STOP TRYING TO TAKE THEM FROM US, OR WE’LL FEED YOUR LYING, GUN-GRABBING *** TO THE BUSH-STAPO YOU SAY IS COMING THE FIRST CHANCE WE GET.

 

[HiroProX]

This guy, IS a Fudd.

 

[ptmmatssc]

my bad . Columbine weapons :

2 sawed off shotguns
1 Tec-DC9
1 Hi Point carbine

http://columbine.free2host.net/weapon.html

Still not exactly military weapons and a far cry from being any more deadly than any "hunting" arms .

 

[Pilgrim]

From another gun owner to John Hansel.

Guns were not developed to make hunters' lives easier. Guns were developed to project political power. As the 'progressive' Mao Tse Tung once said, "Political power comes from the barrel of a gun." That said, this gun owner recognizes that gun ownership protects one from tyranny, should it come from a repressive government or neighborhood scum gangbangers.

Our republic came about because a tyrannical government decided that its colonists shouldn't be permitted to bear arms in defense of their homes and their liberties. As we also know, the British troops sent to seize those arms at Lexington and Concord were sent packing back to Boston because the colonists possessed weapons equivalent in power to the famous British "Brown Bess" musket.

I'm sure those routed British troops wished there had been some sort of law limiting the colonists to slingshots, rocks, and clubs.

As a veteran of 20 years and a retired peace officer, I can tell you my priorities are different from Mr. Hansel's. I own firearms for the following reasons:

1. Self-defense.

2. Target shooting.

3. Hunting.

Attempts to limit the arms available to private citizens only means that government will have a monopoly on political power (see Mao Tse Tung's comments above). Our form of government is completely different from all others because politcal power rests in the hands of its citizens and not the government (again see Mao Tse Tung's comments above).

 

[Standing Wolf]

The most valued slaves are those that fashion their own leg irons.

 

[BrianB]

Daha, Pilgrim. +1

 

[glockman19]

Great, AK-47's and Ar-15 's are semi auto. So are M1A's Fal's and other widely used "assult Weapons". Problem is no one can define what an Assult Weapon really is. Today it's considered everything down to a 10/22.

Based on Fully Automatic Weapons? No one other than a "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." sound familiar?

There are only 26 words in the 2nd amendment. I'm guessing because the writers didn't want to confuse anyone then or now with alot of unnecessary words.

Full 2nd Amendment
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[gotarheels03]

I think the guy that wrote that isn't really a gun owner. A 9mm Glock and a P22 are definitely NOT "Assault Weapons." Regardless, in America "Land of the Free" I should be able to own and use whatever gun I please when target shooting and for home defense.

 

[Flyboy]

But he's right, they are for self defense. Even the Parker court said so:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).

 

[cracked butt]

The guy is probably just a snob rich hunter.

I secretly love it when talks of banning all 'armor-piercing-cop-killing' bullets comes up in congress. Its almost the equivalent of the Fudds being grabbed by the lapels and shaken hard.