Dear Second Amendment Supporter,
Thank you for your generous support in the fight to uphold our U.S. Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and defend the Second Amendment.
Your contribution and/or membership dues directly fund the educational efforts and public relations programs of the Second Amendment Foundation to counter gun-ban propaganda from groups like the Brady Campaign, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and U.S. Conference of Mayors.
SAF’s legal victories in McDonald v. Chicago and Ezell v. Chicago, along with its work with attorneys in U.S. v. Heller and other landmark court cases are examples of our legal action to keep the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution intact. We currently have almost two dozen court cases pending. For a comprehensive list of current and past litigation, please go to 2ndAmendmentCourtCases.com.
On behalf of our staff and American gun rights supporters, I want to thank you. Without dedicated individuals like you, we cannot continue this fight.
Sincerely,
Alan M. Gottlieb, Founder
Second Amendment Foundation
Author: Tom Lindsay
Just a regular guy who likes to shoot and cook barbecue. Leukemia survivor. Bourbon drinker. Chemical Engineer.
A History Lesson
“Why does anyone need to own a military gun?”
You hear it from the anti-gun crowd, who fear the gun with a phobia. And, strangely, you hear it from hunters, who look on the new technology with disdain, unaware that they are reinforcing the anti-gun crowd’s message.
With the recent events in the news, I hear it on TV and in the media all the time, so I thought I might take a minute to convey this history lesson.
First, every gun started out as a military gun. That was the nature of the invention. Firearms development is expensive, and the expense can only be justified and recouped by a lucrative government contract. Thus has it ever been, until recent expansions of the market represented by hunting guns made it sustainable of itself.
Second, especially to the hunters, I say, your argument has been made from the beginning, and dismissed. The first hunters to field muskets were probably vocally abused by archers. Then, musket hunters looked down on muzzle loading rifle users, who in turn reviled breach loading rifle users, who then shunned bolt action rifle users. And, remember, the elegant bolt action of the revered Remington* Model 700 is, in fact, the Mauser 98 action, fielded by Hitler’s best.
New guns are introduced all the time, because they are more accurate, lighter, and better. The new “modern sporting rifle” is no exception. Yes, it is based on the AR-15 platform. Get used to it, and get over it.
+++++
Ironically, there are those who argue that civilians have no need to own a military rifle. These same people argue that the militia clause in the Second Amendment – “A well regulated militia” – means that only the organized militia has the right to own guns, not individuals.
However, in that vein, the Supreme Court, in the case of DC v. Heller, held that the Second Amendment was an individual right. The militia clause (which they called the prefatory clause) explains this, when one understands that the militia, today as in 1791, consists of all able bodied citizens of military age.
Here’s where the irony comes in: these people who claim the militia clause precludes individual ownership of any gun, turn around and ignore the militia clause when considering military guns. In fact, in the same Heller case, the Supreme Court held
“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home.”
Thus, not only is it every citizen’s right to own guns, it is our right to own military guns, since the highest calling of that right would be in defense of the security of our free state.
* Edited. The original posting said “Winchester Model 700” which doesn’t exist. (Without this note the comment wouldn’t make any sense . . .)
How To Prevent Mass Shootings
Like most Americans, I was saddened and outraged by the shootings last week in Newtown, Connecticut. My heart goes out to the parents, children, and citizens of that town, and the responders and others involved.
As expected, the media and the President have completely avoided the true nature of this tragedy, and, in so doing, will avoid the best lasting actions we can take to prevent them in the future.
The real cause of this shooting wasn’t evil assault rifles, or high capacity clips, or lack of gun safes. It was the concept of the “gun free zone.”
The people in that school, as in schools across America, were completely at the mercy of anyone who decided to come in with the intent of doing them harm. The same goes for anyone at a venue that has been declared off limits to guns.
That’s because criminals and nutjobs don’t pay attention to the signs on the door. And it’s not because the penalties for violating the gun free zone are too lax, as someone from the CSGV once tried to argue with me. No amount of penalty will deter someone who is determined to break the law, especially since the threat of life in prison or execution isn’t going to deter them from murder.
So, how do we prevent this kind of incident in the future? Simply, do away with gun free zones.
Of course, the first argument that follows is that armed children, or teachers, or anyone, would not be expected to be able to prevail in a gun battle with someone so heavily armed. Unfortunately this argument misses the nature of these incidents as well.
You see, it isn’t the armed teacher or customer that wins this battle, so much as the threat of armed teachers or customers.
Just the possibility of the presence armed resistance will keep our children and shoppers and worshipers safe. Why? Because the people who perpetrate these horrific acts are cowards through and through. In every instance, when confronted by the first responder with a gun, they kill themselves.
If you need proof, look my home town of Kennesaw, Georgia. Famously, every homeowner is required by a city ordinance to own a gun. And the theaters and malls around allow guns to be carried. And, as a result, the crime rate here is among the lowest in the country, and, more to the point, there has never been a mall shooting or theater shooting here, ever.
In fact, even normal armed robbery has been prevented on at least one occasion, because of the presence of civilians, lawfully carrying guns.
So, the real course to take is two-fold. First, enhance the care we give to the mentally ill, and develop a system to integrate their treatment with the NICS background system. This is tricky ground, though, because of health privacy concerns, and I won’t offer anything beyond that.
But, regardless of what we do with the mentally ill, we must act to abolish government mandated gun free zones.
As gun owners and consumers, we can do our part by avoiding businesses that choose to prohibit lawful carry of firearms, and make sure the owners of those businesses know we are doing so.
And, in the meantime, we must continue the course, and remind those who want to latch on to an inanimate object as a cause of evil, that it is, instead, evil people who are at fault, and evil people, by their nature, will merely laugh at your attempts to take their guns. And, we must remind them that the end game of any gun confiscation scheme they may enact is that only the evil people will have guns, and that they will then be at the mercy of evil people. By then it will be too late.
Thoughts On Caliber Selection
You can probably infer from my use of this image how I feel about the whole topic of caliber selection. But, recently, I have read a lot of postings elsewhere that make this topic rather hard to understand.
Personally, I prefer to stay out of the “.45 versus 9mm” argument. That’s why I include that in my Pledge.
Having said that, here is what I tell people who ask me which gun they should buy, or which caliber they should pick.
The purpose of a handgun is to make holes in an aggressor, and, hopefully, make them stop doing whatever it is that is threatening me or my loves ones. Handguns aren’t going to blow anyone across the room, or rip anyone’s arm off, no matter what the movies or the trolls on the interwebz want you to think.
The purpose of shooting someone, then, is to put holes in them. How big do the holes need to be? This big? ( ) Or this big? ( )
Personally, my plan is to make as many holes as I need to, which will let blood out, which will make the aggressor stop, either by breaking their will to continue, or by making their brain stop working. I will leave how big the holes are to the coroner.
So, it then comes down to how many holes I can make, in an area that will cause the aggressor to stop, and how fast. Thus, the defining specifications in a handgun, for me, becomes magazine capacity and recoil control.
Thus, everyone should choose their handgun based on how well they can control the gun, and how many shots they can deliver accurately and quickly. For me, my .45ACP Glock 21SF is as easy to control as my 9mm Glock 17 or my 9mm Glock 19. That isn’t to say that the recoil is the same, or less. Quite the contrary. But I don’t have any problem controlling the .45ACP round, because I’ve shot it enough to get good at it. Actually, I find I shoot the G21SF more accurately than either 9mm, because I pay more attention, and use better trigger control.
But, my G17 holds 20 rounds, while the G21SF holds 14, and is about twice as heavy, and about twice as expensive to practice with. So, for me, that makes my G17 and G19 a better choice.
++++
Interestingly, this debate isn’t limited to handguns. For some time, the merits of the .223 rifle cartridge versus others, notably the .308, has been beaten almost to death.
I found this account in Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries (Vol. 5, No. 1, January 1997) that I thought was interesting:
We have never been enthusiastic about the use as a battle round of the 223, which is essentially a varmint cartridge, and our view is shared by most of the people who have used the M16 in close combat. However, we ran across an amusing anecdote from Vietnam which suggests that there are two sides to most questions. It appears that this marine sergeant became involved in a short-range daylight firefight in which his people were supported by two M48 tanks mounting 90 millimeter guns. As things developed the sergeant noticed a gook a short way off armed with a bazooka (RPG), which was aimed precisely at one of the supporting tanks and well within rocket range. The sergeant assumed a classic offhand firing position, right elbow high, left elbow under the piece, and with his weapon placed properly in the semi-automatic mode, he squeezed off his single round. At precisely that moment, the other tank, having noticed the same gook, touched off one round of 90 millimeter main battery ammunition, but there was so much going on at the time that the sergeant was not aware of the tank round. The gook was totally scrambled, and our marine looked wonderingly down at his little poodle shooter in amazement.
++++
Finally, for more on stopping power and caliber specifications, check out this article in American Rifleman and the website Ballistics 101.
If you want to base your decision on some other factors than I do, that’s okay.
Fill Yer Hands 