My letter to the NRA

[Sav .250]

When you said in part,".........I fail to see the civilian use............."\

You are going down a very slippery slope my friend. There was a Gun editor
who got on that slope and he crashed a burned.

 

[SaxonPig]

Either mdog is a mole working for a gun control group and pretending to be a legitimate gun owner who sees no need for guns he doesn't like or he really is a gun owner who doesn't like some guns and therefore feels that nobody should have them because he doesn't like them.

Either way he is misguided and acting foolishly and should be ignored.

 

[The Foo]

So, a polymer Glock that shoots 9mm is fine.

But this polymer firearm that shoots 9mm isn't?

 

[Str8Shooter]

Respectively yours,

I think you meant "respectfully yours"

 

[DaveBeal]

mdog, I had thoughts similar to yours when I read that article in AR. It's a fairly ridiculous gun - ugly, oversized, overpriced and impractical. And yes, as a derivative of an automatic combat pistol, it's the kind of firearm that anti-gun folks describe as "a gun that's only meant to kill people". But I've been called a troll here, too.

 

[yokel]

While were at it, let's have a look at what the NRA bylaws say at Article II - Purpose and Objectives:

1. To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially with reference to the inalienable right of the individual American citizen guaranteed by such Constitution to acquire, possess, collect, exhibit, transport, carry, transfer ownership of, and enjoy the right to use firearms, in order that the people may always be in a position to exercise their legitimate individual rights of self-preservation and defense of family, person, and property, as well as to serve effectively in the appropriate militia for the common defense of the Republic and the individual liberty of its citizens;
2. To promote public safety, law and order, and the national defense;
3. To train members of law enforcement agencies, the armed forces, the militia, and people of good repute in marksmanship and in the safe handling and efficient use of small arms."

If that is true, you would expect to read reviews of modern day militia arms such as revolvers, pistols, submachine guns, shotguns, carbines, assault rifles, rifles, sniper rifles, squad automatic weapons, light machine guns, general purpose machine guns, medium machine guns, RPGs, and hand grenades.

 

[camslam]

Javelin: Count me in as officially jealous. Other than the caliber on that beauty, I want it.

Dave Beal and Mdog: obviously you guys haven't been around anti's a whole lot, because if you had, you would understand they don't care if its a .22 LR, a .50 BMG, an AR-15, an AK, a water pistol, this DS Arms gun, a BB gun, it just doesn't matter.

IF IT IS A GUN, THEY DON'T LIKE IT!

Everybody has plenty of opinions about what guns they like and for what purposes. I've read my fair share of posts on this website from people that don't like my Glocks or AK, but to me they are a functional, reliable, thing of beauty.

Why don't you guys focus on making sure people can own guns rather than taking issue with the type of guns they choose to own. Just an idea.

 

[GonHuntin]

However, guns like the Mac 10, Tec 9 and now this B&T MP9 maybe fantastic tactical weapons for special ops, but I fail to see the civilian use of a semi-automatic version of any of these guns.

Me too! I think they should have been left as designed, as a select fire weapon......and I think we should be able to buy them at WalMart with no more paperwork than it takes to buy a 22 pistol..........

 

[GTFord1]

That's one oddball letter, and response to the reponses.

 

[ants]

Look at the other posts by mdog and it doesn't appear that he's a troll.

His opinions differ from yours and he said so.
It's his First Amendment right, and I'll fight for him to keep it.

In fact, many men and women already fought for him to keep it. Honor that right.





Let him express his opinion. Then express your own.
Be careful of hypocrisy. Don't tell him to shut up, if we're not going to shut up.

We need to preserve all rights, not just the First Amendment.
That's the lesson we need to teach you, mdog.
You have the right to express your opinion, but preserving all rights includes preserving our right to possess a TP9.

 

[devildog66]

No infringement of 1st Amendment right here. None of us have that power, so far as I know, to infringe on that. That said, all are entitled to their opinion. The exception seems to be that this 2A brother seems to think his distaste for a weapon system should limit my choice of the same.

 

[rickomatic]

I too looked back at mdogs other posts and while numbering in the "few" (2 others if I remember) they weren't along anti lines at all. And they span a couple years timeframe. He may be a lurker, but I doubt a troll.

mdog, I'm sorry if ,the you know what ,hit the fan in regards to the responses you got. You may have been well intentioned with your letter. Maybe you are a fairly recent member of the brotherhood. If so, welcome. But you need to remember something very important. It is the very idea that you expressed in your post and letter that has led to the erosion of our rights that we've witnessed ever since the 1934 Gun Control Act. It is a divide and conquer stragegy of the antis that needs to be batted down whenever it rears it ugly head. Your stance on the "need" or "reason" or "purpose" of any particular firearm is anathema to those of us who understand the true meaning of the 2nd Ammendment and the utter necessity to not only preserve it, but to remove any and all existing impediments to it.
Someone else's "opinion" about the ownership of any firearm, or the public at large's perception of it are meaningless. The 2nd Ammendment is unequivical. You touched a nerve.
Stick around and join in to other discussions. I will try my best not to be condesending or too knee jerked in my responses to you. But don't think that there aren't a lot of us here, and other places that are willing to tell it like it is when needed.

 

[GTFord1]

His opinions differ from yours and he said so.
It's his First Amendment right, and I'll fight for him to keep it.

In fact, many men and women already fought for him to keep it. Honor that right.

Um, last time I checked, disagreeing with someone doesn't "infringe their first amendment rights."

 

[mdog]

This is the third time I have tried to post this response so if three similar messages appear I apologize.

I gather a troll is an anti-gunner who posts messages to cause trouble. I assure you I am not an anti-gun advocate nor am I a troll. I am a lifetime endowment member of the NRA and back this up with financial contributions and my efforts to recruit new members. I belong to two gun clubs and shoot 2-3 times a week. In order of preference I shoot skeet, trap , pistol and rifle. I have a safe full of firearms and stopped counting years ago. I saw what was coming and stocked up on ammunition over a year ago. Boy, am I glad I did.

If a lurker is someone who reads the forum 1-2 times a week but never contributes to a discussion, I am guilty. I chose this forum to post my message because it is the one I respect the most and I thought I would get the best discussion. I welcome criticism to my original post but it is all the name calling that surprises me. Sticks and stones... life goes on.

I do appreciate the negative comments and wish I could respond to each individually. They generally fall under the cliches, "give an inch and they will take a mile" or "it's all or nothing." Some of the members at my club feel the same way and you may be right. I tend to agree with most of what the NRA lobbies for and a little of what the anti-gunners promote. Rest assured my heart belongs to the NRA and the right to bear arms.

I am very concerned with the battles the NRA has in store during the next four years with Obama in office. If I had read the article about the TP9 in Soldier of Fortune, I would have thought nothing of it. However, American Rifleman is one of the premier NRA publications. I don't want to see an anti-gun lobbyist waving a copy of American Rifleman shouting, "See what the NRA condones!" And the person who posted the picture of the Glock with the 30 round magazine and silencer, yes, that scares me. I am not questioning your right to own it, more power to you. However, when the general public sees such a weapon, they are shocked and this is exactly what the anti-gunners wants. Someone else commented on the fact that a Glock and the TP9 are both polymer 9mm semiautomatic pistols. But looks do make a difference when the non-gun owning public looks at the pictures.

The NRA has the difficult task of educating the non-gun owning public. What is normal for you and I can be shocking and outrageous to the public. Look how long it has taken the general public to accept the AR-15 as a legitimate hunting rifle. As silly as this sounds, I believe putting camoflage on the Evil Black Rifle has done more than anything else to help this issue. You and I know the parts inside are the same no matter what the color of the rifle is.

If you want a TP9 for home defense, buy one. My concern is with American Rifleman judgment in publishing the article and hurting the cause. And again I repeat this is just my opinion and you do not need to agree with me.

If and when I hear from the NRA, I will post their reply. I sent a letter to Wayne LaPierre and a copy to Mark Keefe, editor of American Rifleman.

 

[TexasRifleman]

And yes, as a derivative of an automatic combat pistol, it's the kind of firearm that anti-gun folks describe as "a gun that's only meant to kill people". But I've been called a troll here, too.

So was the Garand, the Mosin Nagant, the 1903 Springfield, and many others.

Under your system would you ban them as well? Their original intent was to kill people in time of war, therefore they must be bad.

Let's see, so what you are saying is that any firearm or cartridge derivative of a military arm should be banned.

That leaves us..... uh...... hmmm....... I'll get back to you, can't think of any right now.

So basically you'd ban them all.

Well the least you could do is just come out and say it.

 

[61chalk]

"..Fail to see civilian use of semi-auto versions...."

When the second ammendment took place, they only had muzzle loaders...do you only want muzzle loaders? Thats why they didn't say muzzle loader...

Also you called the AR 15 that "Evil Black Gun"....I prefer what Henry Winkler called it in "Hero"...."IMPLEMENT of DESTRUCTION"..... by the way, ALL guns are FUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SaxonPig]

mdog- You claim to be sincere, so I will assume you are.

You have to realize that the people who want to ban assault weapons also want to ban hunting shotguns. They want to ban all guns. They are starting with the ones they see as the easiest targets, the ones they can convince people like you to join them in banning. Then they will come after the next type of gun and the next and the next.

To protect the right to own ANY gun you must defend the right to own ALL guns. There are no bad guns, only bad people who misuse them.

If they can ban ANY gun, they can... and will... ban ALL guns. You are playing right into their hands when you say we don't "need" this gun or that gun. It's not about what guns we need. It's about our right to own any gun we choose.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

This is a copy of a letter I just mailed to Mr. LaPierre of the NRA. I am interested in your reaction, good or bad, to my letter.

However, guns like the Mac 10, Tec 9 and now this B&T MP9 maybe fantastic tactical weapons for special ops, but I fail to see the civilian use of a semi-automatic version of any of these guns. For those who have not read the article, DS Arms has taken the B&T MP9 and made a semiautomatic version called the TP9. In my opinion these guns are more likely to be used in a bank robbery or gang violence than target practice or hunting.
What is normal for you and I can be shocking and outrageous to the public.

My reaction is that you sound like someone who supports gun bans. My reaction is that you are not an advocate for gun rights. Let me repeat that it is opinions such as yours which fuel gun bans. You feel that you are personally entitled to judge whether or not a firearm has a sporting purpose. This is the attitude of the Brady Bunch, Pelosi, McCarthy, etc who wish to ban guns based on cosmetic features.
You have stepped right into the trap of advocating "reasonable" gun control.
It is attitudes like yours from within which are the greatest danger to shooting sports in general. Your judgemental statements show a lack of respect for the Second Amendment and Gun Rights in general.
The civilian use of fully automatic firearms, short barrel firearms, suppressed firearms and scary looking offensive black guns is for recreational use, hunting and defense if desired. It is frankly none of your or anyone else's business why I would wish to purchase own and shoot such guns if by doing so I am harming no one and breaking no laws.
How dare you advocate restricting the ownership and/or promotion of ownership of unique and unusual firearms because you personally do not have a use for them.
You want to know what kind of person is hurting the cause? Look in the mirror.
Precisely what cause are you referring to? Certainly not the defense of the Second Amendment to our Constitution and the ability for each and every US citizen to bear arms. The defense of unique and unusual firearms, full auto firearms, offensive looking black firearms etc is exactly the cause we are fighting right now. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Defending only bolt, pump, lever and break action firearms is not being a Second Amendment advocate.
You do realize that there are an exponentially larger number of these types of firearms owned by reasonable responsible adults who hunt and sport shoot than the very tiny number of these types of firearms actually used in crimes, right??

If they can ban ANY gun, they can... and will... ban ALL guns. You are playing right into their hands when you say we don't "need" this gun or that gun. It's not about what guns we need. It's about our right to own any gun we choose.

Exactly!!!

 

[GonHuntin]

mdog

I'm guessing you would get a lot more support for your letter if you posted it at Bradycampaign.org or Handgun Control Inc.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I'm guessing you would get a lot more support for your letter if you posted it at Bradycampaign.org or Handgun Control Inc.

That's probably where it was cut and pasted from

 

[DaveBeal]

And yes, as a derivative of an automatic combat pistol, it's the kind of firearm that anti-gun folks describe as "a gun that's only meant to kill people". But I've been called a troll here, too.

...
So basically you'd ban them all.

Well the least you could do is just come out and say it.

Eh? Nowhere in my post did I mention or even suggest banning anything.

I just said that I agreed with mdog that running this article in the flagship publication of the nation's best known gun rights organization might not be helping the 2A cause among non-gun owners.

 

[Autopistola]

+1, GonHuntin!

The TP9 was the only gun I found interesting in that issue, and the MP9 is my favorite SMG! That said, the TP9 is ridiculous, expensive, and probably fun. Nothing wrong with owning/shooting military-styled weapons for novelty and entertainment. Just 'cause it looks evil doesn't mean it'll be used that way.

Do anti-gunners actually subscribe to American Rifleman just to single out the the black weapons which look like they belong in an action movie? Hell, if they cut those types of guns out of AR I probably wouldn't bother skimming through it.

 

[Geezer Glide]

You know, I don't think I will ever have the "need" to own a Barrett .50 cal rifle but, I don't have a problem with anyone else owning one, as long as they are legally allowed to own firearms. If we only had the things that we need, we sure wouldn't have many things, would we?

 

[U.S.SFC_RET]

Mdog you are entitled to your letter to the NRA. You are entitled to what you post. My advice to you is this. As a new poster you will be taken as a troll because you have a low number of posts. Welcome to THR. I personally don't believe you to be a troll on this site as others have posted before me.
Contribute to and pick up some great information from THR.

SFC_RET

 

[rickomatic]

Our purpose and our task is not to look politically correct to the rest of the world. It is to educate the rest of the world in the FACT that WE are right, and they are wrong. We will not give one more inch. We have given too many inches over the past 75 years. It's time to start taking back ground. Let's start that by becoming a unified voice, not one of factions. I thought we all learned that last year with Zumbo.
There are aspects of the shooting sports that I might not be involved in, and maybe even might think are silly. But you know what? Anyone and EVERYONE who is involved in any aspect of shooting, short of gang bangers, is a brother or sister of mine. It's an often overused line, but it still rings true. "If we don't hang together, we are destined to hang seperately".