In a democracy, nothing is supposed to matter more than the will of the people.

So it was painful to watch last week as the will of the people was overturned and one of Arizona’s duly elected representatives was forced from office. It wasn’t a recall vote or scandal that did it. No, the people’s will was overturned by a gun.

Here we go, another anti-gun type who somehow thinks the “will of the people” must be for gun control, but somehow the gun lobby has too much power. The irony here is that he even says, “In a democracy, nothing is supposed to matter more than the will of the people,” so why doesn’t he accept that the will of the people is for their Second Amendment rights?

And normally we don’t respond to editorials, but Pitts is ripe with errors, half-truths and utter misunderstandings. So much so we’ll take them one at a time. He notes:

This episode (in Tucson) joins a long list of elections overturned and social movements derailed by men with guns, as in the shootings of Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, Huey Long, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, the Kennedy brothers, George Wallace, George Moscone, Harvey Milk andMartin Luther King Jr. Somehow, people who should never have guns never have trouble getting them. John Kennedy’s assassin, a disaffected former Marine who had once defected to the Soviet Union, bought his by mail order. King’s assassin, a wanted fugitive, bought his over the counter.

Today, you cannot easily buy a gun mail order without a Federal Firearms License. Either Pitt doesn’t know this or chose to ignore this fact, but it does deflate his argument. Likewise, background checks are now done when buying a “gun over the counter.” The vast majority of crimes are committed with “illegal guns,” so how does changing the laws as they have been changed really going to stop gun violence?

Likewise, Pitt doesn’t note the cases where guns have been used in self defense? He chooses to ignore such examples as well. Not exactly the fairest argument but we’ll move on. Pitts adds:

After all, the solution here is not rocket science.

We need meaningful background checks on all gun purchases — no loopholes. A mentally unstable man should not have legal access to a gun, period.

Actually we have these background checks in place, with a few exceptions. But it wasn’t actually a loophole that allowed Jared Lee Loughner to obtain a gun. It was a failure in the mental health system, not the background check system. So here we agree, a mentally unstable man should not have access to a gun, but why blame gun laws when he did everything legally?

Pitts also adds:

We need to ban fully automatic weapons from private use. The hunter who needs a gun that fires hundreds of rounds a minute isn’t much of a hunter.

This passage pretty much loses us, as the truth is that “fully automatic weapons” are essentially banned and have been since the 1934 Federal Firearms Act. While some states do allow residents to own fully automatic weapons these individuals must pass detailed background checks and pay for a transfer stamp. There is no example of a legally owned fully automatic weapon being used in a crime. Additionally, these would not be ideal for hunting.

What we think Pitts really meant to comment on was “semi-automatic” firearms. But to suggest these be banned isn’t just silly it is unreasonable. Likewise, this isn’t just an issue about hunting. The Second Amendment of the Constitution doesn’t provide for the right to hunt, it provides for the right to keep and bear arms.

Finally, Pitts closes with a semi-rant:

At the very least, we need to have a serious national dialogue about these and other possible solutions.

But we won’t. Too many on the political left still seem to harbor a fantasy of getting rid of all guns and refuse to distinguish between responsible gun owners and those criminals or deranged people who have no business with firearms. Too many on the political right still harbor the paranoid delusion that any talk of gun control is code for confiscation by jackbooted thugs riding black helicopters.

So nobody talks. Nobody listens. Meantime, our unwillingness to get serious about an epidemic of gun violence brings us the equivalent of 11 Columbine massacres every week — three9/11s every year. Every once in a while, as now, it even overturns an election. The carnage goes on, and on.

We respond by saying, why do we need a serious national dialogue? The truth is that we aren’t seeing Columbine massacres every week. Nor does evoking 9/11 have any place. The hi-jacking on 9/11 was not accomplished with any firearms. Using 9/11 as a call for gun control is insulting to those who died that day.

But yes, there is concern from gun-owners – not just those on the right – that gun control is code for confiscation. This is because the anti-gun crowd calls for it. There are those who suggest that only the police and military should have guns.

Law-abiding gun owners don’t want to give an inch because it won’t stop at an inch. It will continue and continue, so the debate will continue. And this brings us back to the first statement that Pitts made:

In a democracy, nothing is supposed to matter more than the will of the people.

Isn’t the will of the people clear?

At SHOT Show in Las Vegas Under Armor, a leader in athletic performance apparel are introducing new Zeolite-based UA Scent Control Technology in its 2012 Whitetail Collection. This helps hunters remain undetected when in the field via a silver anti-microbial that promises to last 10 times longer than commonly used carbon-based technologies. There is a saying that some predators can smell fear, but now the hunted won’t smell the hunters!

“Indeed, another question included in Gallup’s poll demonstrates robust support for gun violence prevention legislation. 77 percent of respondents feel that the laws covering the sales of firearms should either be stricter or kept as they are now, with only 11 percent calling for them to be weakened. In other words, the vast majority of Americans support reasonable gun control measures; only a small fraction is actually opposed to gun control.”

That isn’t exactly what the poll suggests that “only a small fraction is actually opposed to gun control.” Even Gallup noted:

“In 1991, 68% of Americans favored stricter gun laws and 43% favored a ban on handguns. Those percentages are 43% and 26%, respectively, today.”

But again here is where the media – or in this case a “media watchdog” – doesn’t like the findings and will put its own spin on it.

And apparently some of the readers feel the same way. Here is a sampling of some responses:

o I know I am being “elitist,” but I want an IQ test or something comparable as a requirement for gun ownership.
o I would also support a move to adopt a policy, like many European countries, that forbids the unregulated private ownership of firearms or ammunition used by military forces. Eliminating semiautomatic firearms with multiple, high capacity, removable, clips wouldn’t stop psychopaths from gunning down innocent victims but it would limit the amount of carnage one person could inflict.

Just a quick response to the second point… this came from a self-confessed “hunter.” We’d love to know what rifles he must hunt with, or where he gets his information. European countries don’t exactly ban “ammunition used by military forces,” and don’t know what that means. There isn’t exactly an “army caliber” – and many of the rounds used in military firearms are used in some civilian firearms.

And of course both comments are from “elitists,” but it is the latter one that bothers us. Here is someone who wants the rules modified to suit him. He claims to be a hunter and therefore has no problem with guns, as long as he can use them as he wants. Typical liberals who see it only their way!

Of course the writer also tried to suggest that crime and gun owners is connected. First she writes:

“This organisation [sic] strongly advocates the rights of gun ownership to be a personal and moral right, denying any links between the lax laws relating to gun ownership and high gun-related violence in the US.”

Has this writer seen the news? Has she seen the violence in Africa, notably Libya? There is strong gun-related violence. America by contrast is a safe country, but she considers rare events to be the effect of gun ownership. And she tries to explain this fact in an argument that we see too often from those who need a lesson in history. She writes:

“The Second Amendment to the US Constitution protects the ‘rights of the people to keep and bear arms.’ This is embedded within the Bill of Rights. This amendment was drawn by the Founding Fathers in 1791, in a historical period when most people lived in agrarian communities and guns were used for hunting and for protection against Native Americans and highwaymen. Attempting to find actual sense in this inherent piece of the foundation of American society in the 21st century is to say the least, insanity.”

The Second Amendment actually reads “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It is a single “right” not “rights,” but again, it appears she wrote her editorial from memory. And no, this was not written at a time to defend from “Native Americans and highwaymen.” This was following the American Revolution was to ensure that the people would not fall under tyranny. This notion that it was also for hunting primary is nonsense.

She adds:

“There clearly needs to be a modification in the Second Amendment which can be viewed as anachronistic, belonging to the long-gone days of the wild, American frontier. Is the right to bear arms in today’s society a necessity as it was over 200 years ago? And has this right not been stretched too far and a borderline obsession with the possession and usages of guns not ensued from this need to ‘protect’ oneself? Has that ‘protection’ not turned around drastically to cause many of the heinous crimes we see today?”

And here she plays the long established card that the technology has changed. So do we need to change (modify) the First Amendment. It protects the right of free speech and freedom of the press. But it says nothing of radio, TV or the Internet. Should those not be protected?

And later in the editorial, which spends much of the time focused on mass shootings, she writes something truly disturbing:

“How many innocent lives have actually been saved by the use of weapons (excluding uses by the police forces) and how many innocent lives have been taken? The plain and simple question in my mind is: why should anyone have any access to guns except for the police and military forces?”

Many people have actually used guns to defend their homes and property. Likewise, this reporter didn’t take the time to actually note that the latest FBI statistics show crime is down and gun ownership is up. That goes against her whole argument that there is more crime because of guns. What there actually is now is more reporting of big events. These tragic shootings happen and these grab media attention.

Finally, she asks, “why should anyone have any access to guns expect for the police and military forces?” This is a common question. But doesn’t that make us live in a police state? While we don’t agree with the protesters on Wall Street, the truth is we believe they have a right to be there. In a police state they might not. And finally, given how many guns have gone missing in Mexico from the military, we ask would you really want to trust the military – not to mention the police. Given the fact that the Los Angeles SWAT team just lost nearly two dozen submachine guns it is clear the police can’t always be trusted.

As we’ve long noted, the term is dubious because it implies that people think assault weapons are something they are not – mainly military firearms. While this debate will likely continue… we were shocked by some of the comments:

“And accurately labelled [sic] in the original. It is used for assaults. I have hunted numerous times, and have yet to see someone taking down a deer with an AR-15 or an AK-37 [sic].”

This just shows arrogance. If this guy doesn’t want to hunt with an AR-15 it must not be good enough for anyone else. And this notion of “it is used for assaults” is nonsense and an utter simplification. The Germans who produced the first assault rifle, the StG44 were surely on the defensive in 1944 and 1945 but used the small arm. This is like saying only a sniper can use a sniper rifle. Nonsense.

And there is this comment:

“Are assualt [sic] weapons fully automatic? I thought fully automatic guns were against the law?”

The uninformed will comment on an issue they clearly don’t understand, and yet offer their opinion. This could describe most people who say they don’t like guns. That comment received this response:

“No and no, the game they are playing is wordplay to delegitimize [sic] any effort to control unrestricted sales of ‘assault style’ weapons. Fully automatic weapons are available with a collectors [sic] license for sure, and maybe other ways as well. But since the weapons that are being sold with no provision for better judgement [sic] are just high-capacity repeating rifles TECHNICALLY, the gun lobby objects. But no hunters need to be able to fire 30 rounds one after another out of a pistol, nor do they need a banana-clips worth of shells to repeatedly fire to bring down a deer. No one even wants to restrict their ability to purchase these weapons, but they would like you to sign for them when you happen to be purchasing multiples in a week. The problem to the armed public is the resemblance of these rifles to actual assault rifles, like the ones brought to campaign rallies to taunt people who aren’t real keen on mass-shootings that our country is famous for.”

And here we get back to the point previously noted that hunters don’t need the guns. Well, what about sport shooters? Of course President Obama is the one who has noted that he isn’t going to restrict the Second Amendment as it relates to sportsman, which goes back to our point. The Second Amendment isn’t about hunters! It is about the rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms! This statement about hunting shows the nonsense involved by those who don’t care about the Second Amendment. Even if this person making the statement cared about hunting, he clearly isn’t thinking beyond it.

And there is more:

“I’d personally consider an ‘assault rifle’ to be a weapon other than a handgun (ex: semi-automatic or revolver) or submachine gun (ex: FN Herstal P90, Tec-DC9, H&K MP5) that can fire high-powered rounds such as .223cal, .308cal, or 7.62mm with a selective fire capability. Many tend to have a lever built into the trigger assembly for selecting single-shot, multi-round burst, or safety-on. The category especially includes military-derived rifles like the AR-15/M4 family used by many US and NATO forces, Kalashnikov-style rifles (AK-47, AKM, AK-74) that originated from the former USSR, and newer high-tech weapons from Europe like the FN Herstal SCAR, H&K G36, or SIG-Sauer 556. I think ‘assault rifle’ is a perfectly accurate term. These rifles were all designed and mass-produced to be (quite literally) anti-personnel weapons in a combat situation. They were NOT designed with residential protection, competitive shooting, or hunting in mind- otherwise there would be no need to sell a modified version of any of the above rifles to the general public. For example, you cannot wisely use an AR-15 rifle to protect your home from a burglar who is inside- the penetration properties of a high-powered weapon would make the risk to your family in an adjacent room a serious concern. There’s a reason that police SWAT units rarely use assault rifles for operations inside an occupied building.”

There we have it. A liberal who likes to shoot a bit and knows something or two about guns. He understand the terminology and then doesn’t waste a breath saying why he doesn’t think anyone needs the guns.

Of course he wrong to say “a weapon other than a handgun or submachine gun.” That is simplifying the issue. As for him saying these were “all designed and mass produced to be (quite literally) anti-personnel weapons in a combat situation” is only semi-accurate as he fails to note that the commercial models are semi-automatic only. The key feature of a true assault weapon is the selectable fire from fully automatic to semi-automatic depending on the needs.

His statement that it can’t be used in self defense is nonsensical as well. The truth is that most hunting rifles can’t be used for self defense for the same reason. So what the poster attempts to do is offer the numerous reasons why you shouldn’t have the gun, and never mentions any reasons why it could be used, namely sport shooting. The AR-15, AK-47 and other semi-automatics are good sport shooting firearms. They are popular for those uses.

But this post and comments show how narrow minded liberals are once they made up their mind on the topic of firearms.

H.R. 2834, legislation “to recognize the heritage of recreational fishing, hunting, and recreational shooting on Federal public lands and ensure continued opportunities for these activities,” was introduced Friday by Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus (CSC) Rep. Ban Benishek and co-sponsored by former CSC Co-Chairs Rep. Dan Boren and Rep. Don Young and CSC Member Rep. Mike Kelly.

The “Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act” would direct the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to utilize the “multi-use” mandates in their agencies’ respective land management plans to promote sportsmen and sportswomen’s access to national forests and public lands, enhancing the ability of Federal land managers to provide, promote, and plan for recreational uses that balance the needs and interests of all outdoor enthusiasts.

“The Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus has been working alongside us and many of our partners in introducing this legislation to allow Federal public land planners to evaluate the effects that management initiatives have on hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting, and provide a clear analysis of how proposed actions would affect sportsmen’s access to Federal public lands,” said Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation President Jeff Crane.

The legislation requires Federal land managers to support and facilitate use and access for hunting, fishing and recreational shooting and affirms an “open until closed” management policy for these activities on Federal public lands managed by the USFS and the BLM. H.R. 2834 also maintains state authority in managing fish and wildlife on Federal lands.

“Nearly 50 million men, women, and youth hunt and fish. Almost half of all hunters use Federal lands, and in certain states the Federal government owns the only open land available. Millions more engage in target shooting at ranges and informal sites on our public lands. We must protect and enhance sportsmen’s access to Federal lands and opportunities to participate in these activities,” said Rep. Boren.

BLM and USFS lands designated as wilderness, wilderness eligible, or suitable and primitive or semi-primitive areas under provisions of the bill are considered “open” to all legal forms of hunting, fishing and recreational shooting unless there are good reasons to close such areas and the bill requires a transparent public process for any closure or restriction. BLM and USFS would be required to report to Congress on the closure or significant restrictions of 640 or more cumulative acres of land for use in or access to hunting or fishing and related activities.

About:
The Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation celebrated its 20th anniversary in 2009. Throughout this time, CSF has maintained a singleness of purpose that has guided the organization to become the most respected and trusted hunting and fishing organization in the political arena. Visit: www.sportsmenslink.org

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1mm8Jtaxis

Cam Edwards talks to Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter (R-Idaho)

Cam Edwards talks to Pennsylvania State Rep. John Evans

The collection will go on display at the Shelburne Museum next spring. The news site noted:

“The 106-gun collection, amassed by Terry Tyler, consists of firearms manufactured in the state in the 18th and 19th centuries. Among them: Hunting rifles, pistols and military guns from the Mexican-American and Civil Wars, some with stocks made of tiger maple, burled walnut and other decorative woods. The exhibit, ‘Lock, Stock and Barrel: The Terry Tyler Collection of Vermont Firearms,’ opens May 15 at the museum.”

Finally, praising of the history of guns in the media.

The Browning Automatic Rifle is the iconic American light machine gun from the WWII era. And while the BAR which was first deployed in 1918, was ahead of its time, by WWII the weapon design was showing its age. The Johnson M1941 took the basic principles of the Browning and added features that made it a better battle platform.

The M1941 fires a .30-.06 cartridge. When fired automatically, the rate can be varied by the shooter from between 300 to 900 rounds per minute. Ammunition is carried in a 20 round box magazine that is inserted into the left side of the receiver. Additional rounds can be added from the right side of the receiver either by single rounds or via a five round stripper clip, without removing the magazine. This allows tracer rounds to be inserted while keeping the magazine in reserve.

The M1941 can be fired in semi-automatic mode for increased accuracy. Like the Johnson rifle, the M1941 has an easily detachable barrel. This allowed the weapon to have an increased sustained fire capability when compared to the BAR’s permanently attached barrel.

When the United States entered WWII, there weren’t enough BARs to go around. The Marines l ordered some M1941s and were impressed with its performance. For example, a Raider unit on New Georgia Island wrote, “Johnson Light Machine Gun, M1941, Operated smoothly under adverse conditions. Very little maintenance needed. Men now armed with them wouldn’t trade them for any other. Suitable magazine carries should be furnished.”

Only around 10,000 M1941s were manufactured. One problem encountered by frontline troops was a lack of magazines, which were different from anything else in the U.S. arsenal. The M1941 has also been criticized for being too fragile for long term battle service. There are also some reports that say under certain battlefield conditions the weapon jams.

The Johnson LMG isn’t a great technological leap forward but may be the practical limit in what one can expect from an automatic rifle that serves as a light machine gun.