NRA is a force for destruction

Dan,

You conveniently neglected to mention Zumbo’s column called for a government ban of lower powered firearms. The AR-15 type rifles he wanted the government to ban the use of, is very much a lower powered rifle.

Putting the shoe on the other foot, would you embrace or denounce a nationally known and respected journalist at the New York Times or Washington Post calling for the government to ban relatively small media outlets like Scripps News?

Remember, if today we can arbitrarily ignore one part of the Bill of Rights, tomorrow we will ignore part of the Bill of Rights that affects you.

No way around it...

You are a PIG.

I wish I could do my job with as little effort as the author. Would my boss allow me the freedom to make stuff up as I go, I could get a lot done a lot faster.

This is one of the biggest reasons most people do not like or believe the media any longer. They impose their own ideas and facts into stories instead of actually researching the content and learning about what the subject before they put pen to paper. Whet ever happened to simply reporting facts and allowing the people to make a conclusion?

Finally, if this guys ideas were so popular, why are all the comments on this board refuting what he has written? Who is out of touch now, Mr. Author?

Can Dan tell us what exactly a "cop-killer bullet" is? Mabye he should do some more research before throwing around a propaganda term.

at least you're consistent.

In steadfast tradition, you continue to mutilate facts with misinformation and propaganda, and it falls upon folks such as myself to correct you.

You open your article claiming that the police are “outgunned”, due to “semiautomatic assault rifles and armor-piercing bullets”.

Once again, your lack of true knowledge is evident.

The rifles you bemoan are not “assault rifles” – those are actually machine guns (according to the U.S. Department of Defense, and international arms experts) and are heavily regulated and restricted. What you are complaining about is regular guns that fire only one shot each time the trigger is pulled, but have evil looking features, such as a pistol grip, or a bayonet lug.

When was the last time you heard of anyone being a victim of a drive-by bayoneting?

And folks like you would have people believe that these guns shoot some form of “magic” ammunition that can penetrate “bulletproof” vests – ammo that needs to be banned. In fact, they shoot regular sporting arms ammunition; if one were to follow his argument, such “sensible” action could lead to the banning of all rifle ammunition, since regular police ballistic vests are only rated to stop handgun ammunition.

In addition, I would remind you that police chiefs are political appointees, and quite often merely parrot the opinions of the ones who appoint them – typically mayors. They do not represent the men and women “on the street”, who typically have no problem with law-abiding citizens owning whatever guns they choose. As others have said “It’s the criminals, stupid!”

You call those of us that hold dear to our rights “the forces of destruction”, and describe the Second Amendment as “language designed for a militia carrying muskets”. Shall we carry the analogy to the other amendments? I would assume, then, that the medium I am using to compose and convey this (a computer, and the internet) isn’t protected, since neither was even conceivable in the time of our founding fathers? Movies, television, telephone… all subject to the whim of the government, since they were not in existence when the Constitution was written?

Please.

In at least one article in December of ’05, you decried the Patriot act, and wrapped yourself in the very paper you now seek to wipe his behind with. You either believe the Constitution is a living, adaptable article, or you do not, but please don’t “pick and choose” the articles that suit you.

And Mr. Zumbo? Most of the people who contributed their two cents to Mr. Zumbo’s blog were not NRA members, and in fact the NRA was one of the last parties to get involved in the fray. He apologized for expressing his opinion of the hunting use of the “AR” platform – ironically, that wasn’t the part of his blog that offended most people.

Of course, given your distaste for the practice of “blogging” (as evidenced in your own op-ed pieces), I find it amusing that now, since you can use a fragment to support your opinion, the medium is suddenly “legitimate enough” for you to cite.

Zumbo’s blanket reference to the users of “AR’s” as terrorists is what we found offensive – something he did not apologize for until after the sponsorships started dropping. In addition, Zumbo promoted further division in the shooting sports community, between those that shoot animals with pretty rifles and those that shoot targets with “Evil Black Rifles”. Rather than investigate the unexplored, he lashed out, as many so-called “Fudds” (opinionated hunters) do, against something that he didn’t like based solely on looks and misinformation. I thought that discrimination and prejudice based on color and appearance was wrong?

And as for accusing the NRA of “terrorizing its political opponents, and playing on paranoia”? Isn’t that what anti-rights groups like the Brady Campaign and Handgun Control do? They target their audience (who usually have no knowledge of firearms other than what they read in the paper or see on TV), and attempt to convince them that their children will be able to buy Uzis out of ice cream trucks; that a felon can go to the corner store and buy a machine gun, that 20 year old drug dealers who are killed while shooting at police are “innocent child victims of gun violence”. Both are Political Action Committees (PAC’s), and both use the means at their disposal to represent the voice of their respective memberships. While I would never wish to see the voice of the anti-rights groups silenced by state fiat, I do wish they would use unbiased observers to collect data, and produce real (i.e. reproducible) scientific studies, rather than fabricating data to support their pre-existing posture. You fall into lockstep, playing the same misinformation game in this very article, continuing conscious efforts to mislead the American public to promote the anti-rights totalitarian agenda, including linking law abiding American gun-owners to the Taliban and Al Quaida. The difference between you and Zumbo is that we’ve come to expect such lies and misinformation from you.

Given your continued regurgitation of blatant falsehoods, intentional statistical misrepresentations and anti-gun propaganda, I find it laughable that you are presented as a “journalist” by any outlet. You should instead be drawing a check as a paid spokesman for the folks at the Brady Campaign and Handgun Control, rather than from a national news service.

Someone once said that a wise man will make sure his brain is engaged before putting his mouth in gear. Jim Zumbo didn't and he paid the price. While the first amendment protects his right to free speech, he should have remembered that he (1) works for a magazine that sells it's product to the shooting fraternity and (2) Is sponsored by companies that sell their products to the shooting fraternity and (3) that the 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, and everthing to do with the right of the people to own whatever firearm they choose, and for whatever legal purpose they choose.

Does it really come as a surprise to anyone that his employer/sponsors would not want to be associated with/represented by a person who (on his employers web site) basically said that citizens who own semi-automatic firearms are domestic terrorists?

All actions have consequences, even stupidity. Jim Zumbo should have thought about that before he opened his mouth to insert both feet.

Additionally, Jim should have remembered the article he wrote some years ago regarding Smith & Wessons sellout. "Those that refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

Good luck in your retirement Jim. Don't let the door hit you in your brains on the way out.

Frankly, I'm glad the police are finally getting firearms that will shoot across a six-lane road. It's about time. Roads, parking lots and malls are all bigger than they used to be. The police have a duty to keep up with the needs of the community.

Aside from that, your opinion piece is about as ignorant and unenlightened as anything I have ever read from an upper-class elitist.

It wasn't the NRA that undid Jim Zumbo, it was the internet gun owning community.

First of all, there is little I can add to this discussion that hasn't already been stated. However I will ask you a question. What is the functional difference between an AR-15, a Browning Gold shotgun, a Remington 1187 shotgun and a Browning BAR? The answer is. Not a thing. Despite their cosmetics, difference in parts designs, they are functionally IDENTICAL. Meaning, they all work EXACTLY the same way. if you ban one, you pretty much ban them all. second, to say that AR-15 are for criminals since crimes committed with rifles (ANY rifle) is extremely low. Many people own and use AR-15 for many lawful purposes. Thousands enter in target matches, many still go varmint hunting. Why would you use an AR-15 to hunt varmints? Simple, they are light and extremely accurate. What other reason do you need? Furthermore, to label the NRA as an organization that supports gun crime is nothing short of libelous. the NRA has and always will support strict enforcement of gun laws and strict punishment for those who break them. Second the NRA does more to promote gun safety and education than any other organization and offers courses of every kind to properly own and use a firearm.

I would strongly suggest you do your research properly before submitting such a blatently false column.

Mr. Thomasson,
I would like to pose a challenge to you. I am sure that you believe yourself to be reporting the facts or you wouldn't be so bold as to present the statements you have written for public view and comment. If you truly wish to be a good journalist open your mind, squash down any opinions you have already formed, and begin to do some thorough research on the matters of firearms-related crime and firearms-related defense of people and property. Compare the crime statistics across cities in the U.S. and their gun laws with those of other countries. Be honest with yourself and truly research it. Honestly question everything you find that is claimed as fact without something to back it up. Go out to different cities and small towns across the country and actually speak to officers on the streets instead of political appointees with an agenda. Speak to regular folks at bus stops, laundromats, construction sites, even church picnics and get the real story as the people of America tell it. If you are honest with yourself and not one of those who are so set in their ways they cannot learn you may find yourself switching sides in this. I hope so.

The Maryland legislature currently is considering a bill to ban the semiautomatic rifles, and the opposition has been loud and persistent.

Come on...be sure to give the whole story. That opposition has been coming from individual gun owners. Unlike the well-funded professional lobbyists behind the ban, those opposing the ban were true grassroots activists who were forced to take days off from work to appear before the General Assembly.

The NRA left MD gun owners out in the cold and we stepped up to fight the anti-gun special interest lobby.

you really are a clueless fool. the bill of rights GIVES u this freedom to protest and lie about anything u dont like. its called FREE SPEECH. AS a gun owner i also have rights that are protected by the 2nd ammendment..the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. maybe u should read through the bill of rights and find another topic u dont agree with...maybe blacks or women voting... ! just beacause u dont agree with it doesnt make it right.
Its not Bush's fault or gun owning civilians like me, that theres crime and war...if people like u would concentrate as much effort on helping and not hating maybe this country would get somewhere. I really could care less what weapon u dont like..u try for "assault rifles" next would be shotguns..then pistols....where would it stop...maybe u should do some research before u write...you might find yourself standing behind Mr Zumbo in the unemployment line.

JAMIE L BELLEFEUILLE WISCONSIN GUN OWNER

Have though of what would happen if you tried to take honest citizens guns away? Criminals and gangs would still have thier guns but, we citizens would have no way to protect our selves or, our family's.

.....everbody has one. What is funny is that the "opinion leaders" deign to define the responsible exercise of rights, while pooh-poohing the input of Joe Q. Public as not expert enough. Who is it that the MSM seeks to interview and put on panel discussions and have write articles? OTHER JOURNALISTS! Tom Freidmann of the New York Times is an "expert" on MidEast Policy because he writes for the New York Times?
If you're a writer and want to put out provocative things for others to ponder, that's one thing. But to say inflammatory things that haven't even the slightest relationship to a basis of fact should not only reflect on the writer, but also on his circle."The right to traffic in firearms " is meaningless, irrelevant to the discussion, has nothing to do with constitutional protections or anything else. Why Dan Thomasson would want to risk the "stupid" label at this stage of his career, unless it's "personal", is a mystery.
But why there's not more of a peer review in his profession is a bigger mystery. Where is the friendly fellow journalist/writer/boss to put a hand on his shoulder and say "Gee, Dan, don't you think 'profit handsomely from the carnage' is a little much?".

".....in the course of human events....."

Yeah I participated in the bringing down of Zumbo and I'm not a NRA member imagine that.

The NRA has done more to preserve our rights than almost any other organization in America.

You only write BS like this to get people to agree with you. Guess what, it failed.

Dan,
in response to your article in the Las Vegas Sun “Politics Hurt Police’s ability to protect us” (NRA a Force of destruction, on your page).
Correcting the situation as you say, would first begin with our born right (not a privilege) the 2nd amendment freedoms, which allow every citizen a right to keep and bear arms for the safety of their family, property, and their own lives. I am an NRA member, and I recall one night when I was young, my father was out and in the middle of the night, mom had to call out “Isaac get the gun” (we never had one) loud enough so the guy that broke in our home (who had a gun) could hear it and he took off out the balcony door jumped from the second floor and got away. But from that day forward we had firearms in our home.

Dan, you also make a statement about the amount of money that “we the people” are unwilling to spend equipping our police officers, that statement is ludicrous.
We have spent and are increasing their pay, increasing their personnel along with upgrading their equipment yearly.

What you don’t seem to realize is that our law enforcement is a reactionary force. They are not there every minute to defend us law abiding citizens. They are there to protect, once called out, and then restore order.

It has been said “a citizen who shirks his duty to contribute to the security of his community is little better than the criminal who threatens it.” Think about that Dan and the many, men, women and children that have been preyed upon and didn’t have an equalizing force to defend others or themselves. It’s a Constitutional Right and Social Obligation to Carry a Gun.

And what about our police officers? We have had some police officers pick up and rape the innocent citizens of our communities by gun, badge or barter. We as a nation don’t take away guns from all police officers because of a few bad police officers, do we? No, we move on, train, screen, learn from our previous failures in hiring and again find better ways to screen and train our police officers. Are we to say police officers are evil, no! There is a percentage that goes astray, as do citizens, and never do we disarm in a blanketed form. That’s a Dictator, a Ruler……a Tyrant.

When a law abiding citizen carries a gun, just remember its called deterrence. We do it as a nation with nuclear weapons and our armed forces. We do it as a state in times of emergencies, our armed national guard. We do it as a city or town, our armed police departments. The bottom line here is deterrence, which is the key. Make the perpetrators think, alter their course and back down where ever they lurk.

We as a community need to get back to where we were and come together and agree on one thing our constitution. This is the United States, our constitution is Freedom First then if you violate the laws you relinquish your rights. Stick to what has been given to us by our forefathers. Freedom is always First.
The more we come together as a nation in every state and arm our citizens with the rights that were bestowed upon us, the less rapes and murders, kidnappings would occur.

John F. Kennedy stated:
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

Benjamin Franklin said:
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Nevadan “Freedom First”

Dan, in response to your article in the Las Vegas Sun “Politics Hurt Police’s ability to protect us”. Correcting the situation as you say, would first begin with our born right (not a privilege) the 2nd amendment freedoms, which allow every citizen a right to keep and bear arms for the safety of their family, property, and their own lives.

I am an NRA member, and I recall one night when I was young, my father was out and mom had to yell out “Isaac get the gun” loud enough so the guy that broke in our home (who had a gun) could hear it and he took off out the balcony door jumped from the second floor and got away. But from that day forward we had firearms in our home.

Dan, you also make a statement about the amount of money that “we the people” are unwilling to spend equipping our police officers, that statement is ludicrous.
We have spent and are increasing their pay, increasing their personnel along with upgrading their equipment.
What you don’t seem to realize is that our law enforcement is a reactionary force. They are not there every minute to defend us law abiding citizens. They are there to protect, once called out, and then restore order.

It has been said “a citizen who shirks his duty to contribute to the security of his community is little better than the criminal who threatens it.” Think about that Dan and the many, men, women and children that have been preyed upon and didn’t have an equalizing force to defend them or others. It’s a Constitutional Right and Social Obligation to Carry a Gun.

And what about our police officers? We have had some officers pick up and rape the innocent citizens of our communities by gun, badge or barter. We as a nation don’t take away guns from all police officers because of a few bad police officers, do we? No, we move on, train, screen, learn from our previous failures in hiring and again find better ways to screen and train our police officers. Are we to say police officers are evil, no! There is a percentage that goes astray, as do citizens, and never do we disarm in a blanketed form. That's a dictator.

When a citizen carries a gun, just remember its called deterrence. We do it as a nation with nuclear weapons and our armed forces. We do it as a state in times of emergencies, our armed national guard. We do it as a city or town, our armed police departments. The bottom line here is deterrence, which is the key. Make the perpetrators think, alter their course and back down where ever they lurk. We as a community need to get back to where we were and come together and agree on one thing our constitution. This is the United States, our constitution is Freedom First then if you violate the laws you relinquish your rights. Stick to what has been given to us by our forefathers. Freedom is always First.
The more we come together as a nation in every state and arm our citizens with the rights that were bestowed upon us, the less rapes and murders, kidnappings would occur.

John F. Kennedy stated: "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

Those our my thoughts & comments

Sincerely "Freedom First"

I am writing to you in regards to the March 1, 2007 article written by Dan K. Thomasson. In his article,"NRA is a force for destruction" Mr. Thomasson assumed way to many things and thus as a anti gun person and not being "in the gun circle community" would not really know what occurred with the Jim Zumbo event. When writer/ avid hunter Jim Zumbo wrote his story (or posted his story more like it) on a Sunday in February the claims and statements that he made were preposterous. One of the first statement that he made in his letter was that he was unfamiliar with the use of rifles such as the AR variants and or AK rifles (aka "blackrifles") to hunt with. The second and biggest issue is that of the "T" word or terrorist Mr. Thomasson forgot to write in his article that Mr. Zumbo made a call sort to say for all hunters not to associate with other hunters that use these Terrorist weapons [blackrifles]. Furthermore, the other issues I have with Mr. Thomasson's article is that in which police departments are having to spend more money because "Their troops are being out-gunned" and with the following paragraph "If you doubt this, the victories by the forces of destruction over those of common sense and responsibility are too numerous to count. This is a land where the right to traffic in firearms, no matter how dangerous to law and order, is protected by constitutional language designed for a militia carrying muskets and enforced by a self-appointed virulent lobby called the National Rifle Association. It purports to represent the nation's sports shooters, but in reality is the arm of the manufacturers and importers who profit handsomely from the carnage."

This first issue is a problem in itself as Mr. Zumbo knows, as the avid hunter, that you can not go hunting with a 30 round magazine and or a full auto weapon. There are special 5 rd magazine that are designed specifically for these rifles whose caliber, may I add, would be the same as any other rifle Mr. Zumbo would have used. Also, many if not all states have laws that govern the type of ammunition that can be used along with the quantity. I have yet to see an avid hunter carrying 30 magazines to go hunting. The typical hunter needs to carry his supplies while being in the outdoors and can not just carry all the weight in ammunition just cause he wants to "spray and pray". Thus debunking what Mr. Thomasson stated "the intrepid hunter who wants to blast away at animals from bears to (as Zumbo complained) prairie dogs can do so with impunity. How sporting!" at the end of his article.

Second issue is that of the Big "T"- word that seems to have taken over our society after 9/11 even though we have been attacked several times on our homeland yet these other attacks fizzled out of the media light but that is a different story. Again, Mr. Thomasson failed to recognized from Jim Zumbo's article ( I wounder if he even read it) the call for all hunters that use basically non blackrifles to separate from thus hunters that use blackrifles (aka Terrorist weapons). Unfortunately, Mr. Zumbos lack of dynamic and or narrowed wisdom left a door open for the anti gun community to attack the pro gun community. I am not sure how many Jews from WWII would be in favor of gun control or how many people that have actually lived under a dictatorship would have to say about gun control. As an American with out a prefix, I know what it is to have your family have to move several times trying to flee several dictatorships. I wonder how many north Korean citizens would, if given the ability, want to fight for there freedoms?

Many liberal Americans fall complacent and believe that these types of scenarios can't occur in this nation and thus want total gun control. This is the reason our founding fathers wrote the second amendment. The term militia back in the days was a word that described all abled men that could fight. The word was not defined as the National Guard that we have now a days. I wonder why Washington D.C. has such a high crime rate! I wonder how many firearms were involved in crimes that were caused by law biding citizens! Again, a criminal does not care about laws he or she will simply live his and her life with complete disregards to the rule of law. Thus, I can not understand how Mr. Thomasson can write ""The outcry that protects the legitimate gun owner also protects the criminals,.." The law biding citizen is getting his and her rights taken away from them! I say enforce the rules on the books and stop giving plea deals to criminals. Perfect example is that of the two border patrol agents arrested and convicted for doing there jobs and yet a known drug smuggler is free. What is that all about?

Lastly, as I started this letter, Jim Zumbo posted his article on a Sunday, as a recent NRA member I have yet to hear from (i.e. receive any form of communication) from the NRA in regards to this matter. Many people wrote letters to all of Mr. Zumbo's sponsors and to his "boss" to let them know how they felt about this subject that same Sunday. So no the NRA did not tell the 7000 plus people that same Sunday to start writing letters and comments against Mr. Zumbo article. I am certain that yes, as MR. Thomasson stated, "Would it be out of place here to suggest that this swift and unrelenting attack by the NRA on one of its own..." it would be out of place to suggest the NRA had anything to do with Mr. Zumbo's article. I would go so far as to say that that there are more grass roots organizations teaching and removing the fear that most Americans have against guns and gun control. I urge to go to google and find the video of Penn & Teller's %&*#@: Gun Control. I will provide the link below but I am sure I am not a trust worth person as my tone is that to be assumed of a progun, redneck, sister marrying, tobacco chewing, trailer living, gun enthusiast. Now whose doing the stereo typing?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2312508445846864220&q=gun+control

Frank Mena
Miami, FL

P.s. Please forgive me for not completed all my thoughts as I have to go to work preventing real terrorists domestic and foreign from doing harm to my country & please forward to Mr. Thomasson.

I miss journalism. It used to be that journalists examined and presented facts; now they only present alleged facts that support their personal agenda, and never bother to check those facts. Journalists should call either side wrong when they misuse data, not encourage the idea that if you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes the truth. Case in point – Dan Thomasson’s article on the NRA. My favorite point was the comment on a constitutional amendment protecting militias carrying muskets. By that logic, the 1st Amendment only applies to the press in cases where they use a quill pen and parchment, not television and the internet. And by the way, the intent of the founders in drafting the 2nd Amendment is well documented, and does not apply to muskets or hunting, but does apply to the individual rights of the people to protect themselves from the tyranny of their own government. The national police chiefs association is one of the few police associations to take the stand they take, and they do it to encourage hysteria, and increase their budget. A journalist would ask these chiefs to produce specific situations where they were out-gunned, or had officers killed by armor-piercing bullets. They can’t show any factual situations. Another thing that should be painfully obvious from FBI data is that areas that have the strictest gun control laws have substantially higher crime rates. I wonder why? Maybe it’s the fact that predators like unarmed prey, and concentrate in those areas. It’s a pretty well know fact that criminals ignore gun control laws; only the law abiding citizen is affected. In light of the US Supreme Courts ruling in Gonzales vs. the City of Castle Rock, where the court stated that citizens have no constitutional right to police protection, it is a crime to support removal of citizens only means of protection.

As to Jim Zumbo…….the NRA had nothing to do with what happened to him. Zumbo’s demise was caused by a grassroots effort of thousands of law abiding gun enthusiasts, who exercised their constitutional right and complained to his employers. See, Zumbo made the mistake (again) of trying to sacrifice 2nd Amendment rights, thinking that his hunting rights would be protected. It’s not about Zumbo’s right to shoot animals.

X...X...X

Dear Mr. Thomasson:

I read your column “NRA is a force for destruction,” in the Friday March 2, 2007 Doylestown Intelligencer.

If one would believe that column our streets are swarming with armor piercing loaded AK 47 totting hardened criminals. Nothing is further from the truth. Crimes committed with AK 47s are statistically insignificant.

However, violent crime is very significant. Two out of every three Americans will be the victim of violent crime in their lifetime. That is murder to the tune of 25,000 a year, forcible rapes over a quarter of a million a year and armed robbery in the millions. The police can’t protect you. That is one of the very reasons our Founding Fathers wisely recognized the “Right” to self-defense.

If you choose to study the constitutions of the individual founding 13 states you will find they mostly chose the right to self-defense not using the words “militia”.

Sixty years ago Europe and Asia lay in ruin and their cities were very dangerous. Victorious America had cities that were so safe people didn’t even bother to lock their doors. Today, Asia and Europe’s cities are far safer than ours. Singapore was one of the most criminally dangerous countries at the end of WW II. Today Singapore has the same population as Los Angles and only 5% of LA’s police force and less than 3% of it’s violent crime. The rest of Asia has similar crime statistics. How is that so? Their criminal justice systems discover the truth and punish the guilty.

In Europe, only England has crime figures approaching ours. Why? Well, The United Kingdom outlawed guns a few years back and their violent crime rate rose dramatically.

What happened to America sixty years ago so that we became a candy store for violent crime?

In the 1960s the US Supreme Courts liberals led by Chief Justice Earl Warren decided the “Rights” of criminal trumped the safety of society. The nations police Chiefs warned a disaster would follow. Those sage judges laughed openly at the simple minded Cops.

In a series of bizarre rulings defense attorneys were granted a host of mechanisms to bury their client’s guilt. No confessions were admissible. Lie detectors became inadmissible and the career criminal’s record of arrests and convictions were not allowed. Furthermore, evidence, which might “inflame the jury,” was blocked and the list goes on and on and on. Violent crime took off like a prairie fire.

Today, of 1000 violent crimes only 400 result in indictments and only 300 go to trial. And less than 150 result in convictions. Fewer than 50 hardened criminals go to jail for over two years. Over 97% of all cases are plea-bargained to lesser offenses. Almost no sentences are served to term. And those sentences that are served are in prisons that are Palaces, halfway houses and under “House Arrest”. We have hundreds of thousands of murderers and rapists freely walking our streets. In sort America’s criminal justice system has become just a system for criminals.

If you want to find a dangerous organization look at the ACLU where a former head of that organ was just charged with child porn.

No, Mr. Thomasson, until we reform our criminal justice system and allow the truth to once again be paramount I know we need guns to protect ourselves. When we once again punish crime harshly and have the career criminal disappear then I won’t choose to have a gun by my side.

Isn’t ironic, Sir, that the very liberal people who wish to ban guns, are the very ones who conceived, produced and implemented our current criminal justice collapse?

Respectfully yours,

Paul Loubris

X...X...X

I need to respond to this article as it’s full of a great deal of inaccuracies, and misconceptions.

First the facts:

Assault Rifles: An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and battle rifle ammunition.

In laymen’s terms: An assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle (machine gun)

Machine guns

The National Firearms Act (NFA), cited as the Act of June 26, 1934, Ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236

All NFA items (Mainly machine guns) must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain permission from both the ATF and the county sheriff or city or town chief of police, pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and finger prints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a $200 tax.

This process can take longer than 6 months (many times longer) and requires a great deal of government red tape, with no guarantee that you will ever be allowed permission to own an NFA weapon.

The NFA Weapons themselves generally cost more than most new cars, and can go as high as the cost for a very large house (half million) . These weapons are only owned by collectors, and manufactures for R&D purposes.

It should be interesting to note that there has only been one or two crimes committed with registered machine guns (the first crime was a murder committed by a police officer). Only Criminals possess unregistered machine guns.

The Importation of NFA weapons (machine guns) was banned by the 1968 Gun Control Act , and the manufacture of new machine guns that civilians could purchase was effectively banned by language in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

In other words, machine guns have never been a problem.

Enter the “media” and the term “assault rifle”

The media likes to use the term “assault rifle” for everything that is not a bolt action rifle these days. The term is wrongly based on the looks of most semi-auto weapons these days as many rifles “look” like machine guns, yet they are only semi-auto rifles no different in operation than most semi-auto hunting rifles. The term is used to scare people into thinking that millions of people in the US own machine guns (very wrong), and it’s the movie hype (choose any new action movie) that helps sell this image of people owning machine guns. When people hear assault rifle ban they assume “I didn’t think owning a machine gun was legal, and if it is, they should be banned” when in fact they are confusing machine guns with regular rifles.

Semi-Auto Rifles

Semi-Auto rifles, unlike a machine gun only fire one round each time you pull the trigger, in fact a good example of a semi-auto is the Ruger 1022 .22 caliber rifle. The difference in many of the weapons is the looks, as most look just like a rifle used in the military (such as the M16, AK47, FAL, G3, and a number of others) yet the fact is “it’s just looks”.

Any (so called Assault) weapon ban would effectively restrict ownership of a weapon no more advanced than a rifle designed 117 years ago (bolt action rifle). The Semi-Auto rifle has been around since before 1936 (71 years), and even the AR15 is 50 years old. The ban is about a legal citizen owning an ergonomically designed self loading weapon (not true Assault rifles, or Machine Guns).
Why do these weapons look this way?

Simple ergonomics… They are designed to fit the shooter better, and be more controllable for the shooter, and in some cases the recoil is less for a semi-auto rifle. Many shooters of the opposite sex like the AK “style” of rifle merely due to the smaller size (or length of pull) of the stock because it fits them better, and therefore they are more comfortable with it, plus the 7.62x39mm ammunition makes a good close range deer rifle.

The AR15 rifle is a modular rifle highly regarded and extremely popular in competitive shooting matches, as well as for varmint and small game hunting due to its 5.56mm ammunition (7.62mm Winchester versions of the same rifle are also used for deer). This rifle is a copy of the M16 used by today’s military except it lacks the fully auto (machine gun) capability, and because many people (millions) such as myself are veterans, and have spent years training with the M16 rifle, and are very comfortable with it’s handling.

The Modular aspect of this rifle allows you to totally customize the rifle to fit you and suit your needs (unlike bolt action rifles, which you must adjust to). It also allows you to add flexibility to your rifle by changing barrels and/or calibers in minutes, allowing you to own one rifle and use it for hunting, target shooting, competitive shooting, and to defend your family from an armed intruder (you just cannot do that with a normal hunting rifle)

Ammunition

The ammunition used in these rifles are almost identical to the most popular ammunition used today.

5.56mm is basically .223 Remington

7.62mm is basically .308 Winchester

Why is it almost identical to hunting ammunition? Well, you may find this hard to believe, but military ammunition is not as “hot” as hunting ammunition, and in many cases using .308 Winchester ammunition in a rifle designed for 7.62mm ammunition can damage the rifle, despite being identical, but with different loadings. So this kills the myth that “assault rifles” are more powerful than hunting rifles.

DO NOT ban the “assault rifle”

Cry’s to ban so called “assault rifles” can have a devastating effect on the US in general. While most people would consider rifles such as the AR15 as a modern weapon, they fail to realize that the AR15 rifle is over 50 years old now. The M16 rifle used by our military has been basically unchanged for several decades now, yet you see on the news our troops in combat with fairly futurist looking weapons, but it was not the military that made those changes, it was the civilian aftermarket accessories for the AR15 that updated the looks of the US M16 and made it more modular and functional, not some military multimillion dollar research lab. It’s the legal owners of these rifles who are purchasing advanced stocks, quick detachable accessories, and other items produced for these sporting rifles that pays for the R&D, which in turn ends up being sold to our military to support the troops. Without this sporting rifle accessory market the research and development funds would be coming directly out of the pockets of every tax payer (something to ponder, is that the people you are trying to ban from owning these weapons are paying for the military advances, rather than every tax payer).

We already know that criminals don’t obey the law, and it’s a proven fact that criminals will never be bothered with any “assault rifle” ban. Only the law abiding citizens of the United States are affected.

We currently have over 20,000 gun laws in the US. More gun laws will not solve any problems, enforcement of the current laws would solve many of the problems. We don’t Ban cars due to drunk driving (which kills millions), or ban alcohol due to people being drunk and stupid (we tried and it failed miserably), why blame the tool, when you should be blaming the operator?

The Second Amendment

Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, declares the necessity for “a well regulated militia,” and prohibits infringement of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

It does not state that a regulated militia can bear arms (which many people assume). It declares the necessity for “a well regulated militia” as well as the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The original text was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

It later modified to:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

And finally to:

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

You will note there is no Hunting or sporting use clause in the second amendment, or any restrictions on ammunition (type or capacity), or even arms based on looks or design for that matter, and if you have not guessed, weapon bans ARE infringing on the right of the people to bear arms.

The facts are clear, and what the media has been portraying is not only not true, but in many cases outright lies.

There is currently a Bill (HR 297) that is being called the assault rifle ban of 2007. This bill will do nothing to fight crime (just like the last bill), and in fact will hurt us far more than it could ever help. That bill it would basically make nearly all semi-auto weapons illegal (even the Ruger 1022 .22 cal rifle, and semi-auto shotguns) destroying innovation, and making sure that Free Americans cannot own a rifle no more advanced than one manufactured 117 years ago (The semi-auto rifle is over 71 years old now).

If the second amendment is ignored, the first amendment will soon follow. It’s the second amendment that protects not only our heritage, and family, but all the other amendments.

Best regards,

Gary R Graham

PS. The NRA did not create the second amendment, it only tries to protect it, thus protecting all of us. I neither write (or speak) for the NRA, and the NRA has never contacted me to write or speak on any second amendment or weapon related subject. Knowledge is more valuable than misconseptions.

Dear Mr. Thomasson,

I recently read your column about the semi automatic assault weapons and have several comments.

First you state that the NRA ran out Zumbo. As a life member of the NRA I have yet to hear from them. My whole family is NRA life and no one got as much as a postcard from them. It isn't even in their magazines yet. Zumbo happened strictly from the blogosphere. It was not organized from the NRA at all.

Second you comment on the Constitution relegating firearms to the Militia only. Ask yourself why after a major revolution against a government that tried to control firearms, why the Founders would then give that right to another government, especially one that was unproven.

Further, please refer to the state constitutions of the original Colonies (written contemporaneously with the Federal Constitution). Only Massachusetts mentions the Militia, the rest expressly give the right to keep and bear arms to the people with out regard to Militia status. Why would representatives of those states then give that right to keep and bear arms to a new federal government that is again unproven?

Next, in the same vein, when the Bill of Rights was being debated, the purpose was to give rights to the individuals and limit Federal power (see the Tenth Amendment) . Why would the Founders in a Bill of individual rights give the state such a broad mandate? It doesn't make sense. Please refer to the Federalist Papers among other documents.

Finally you make the point about "armor" piercing ammunition. Almost any rifle cartridge out of a hunting rifle will penetrate the types of Personal Body Armor being used today. You have to move to a Level IV armor with a breast plate to avoid some of the more common rifle calibres, and even then you have to ask how stunned would the person be simply from the shock? Keep in mind that a lot of the common rifle calibres used today go back to the 1930's and even earlier, so it isn't even a modern trend.

The NRA is no more out to destroy these United States than you are. They are as passionate about their beliefs as you are. They are not always correct in their stances (by my lights) and neither are you. I would encourage you to study the Second Amendment as well as the Bill of Rights in General to see what it actually stood for and means.

Sincerely yours,

Dr Donald G Hattier
Millville, DE