Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Things We Wish Our Anti-Gun Friends Knew

This has been an enjoyable conversation. I think the comments are excellent. Just a few follow ups.....

It's true that if we exclude some of the Democrat run cess pits, our national homicide rate would look a lot better. I checked the web for our local homicide statistics, and found 3 homicides out of a little over 271,000 people, for a local rate of 1.1 per 100,000. That would put us about 45th out of 219 countries, very near Sweden, Denmark, Portugal and the UK. That's a nice neighborhood.

Machine guns don't really excite me. I grew up nursing a 47 cent box of 22 shells for weeks. That said, if it is ever argued before the Supreme Court, I think the government is in a difficult position. Are machine guns commonly held for lawful purposes? No. Why not? The government prohibits it. I don't think the government can have the benefit of arguing they are not commonly held, when it is the government that has caused that condition.

We have a local law enforcement agency that has an MP5. For what purpose?? I don't see the need. If you're being assaulted by massed troops, a machine gun is a very good friend to have. But that really doesn't happen much in our town. I'd be willing to bet even money that if you strung 10 helium balloons at 100 yards, I could pop them about as fast with my AR15 as they could with their MP5. Still, if the police can have them, I think civilians should be able to as well. Military weapons? Not so sure about that.

It is true that the right to self defense is a God-given right, and the government cannot morally take that right from law abiding people. But the Constitution is a legal document, and if you want to take away the protection of the Second Amendment, there is a prescribed path. And it isn't going to happen.

I pretty well know how to convert an AR15 to full auto, and I still don't think it is that easy. You can't do it with in 5 minutes with a screwdriver and a pair of pliers, which is my definition of easy. Many of the guys here have well above average skills, so to them it probably seems fairly easy. I don't think most people would.

The concealed carry vs. police comparison comes from work done by John Lott, who is a careful worker. He compared rates from Texas, Michigan, and Florida. The Left severely criticizes his work (and pretty much hates on him). He found that permit holders are less likely to be convicted than police officers. Of course, both groups have quite good records.

For all practical purposes, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it does. They say that 2A does not cover a lot of military equipment. So until we can convene a convention and clarify that, the law is that 2A does not cover mortars, machine guns, and other fun things that go bang. The flip side is that it does cover a large assortment of privately held firearms. We have to respect the decision as much as we ask the other side to respect it.

And, by the way, if you are ever challenged with the question, when did an armed populace ever prevent the invasion of a country, you can answer December 7, 1941. Documents revealed after the war show that the Japanese knew very well what their losses would be with an unarmed populace, but were not confident about dealing with an armed populace.

I don't have many female friends.

Denton, my friend, they DON'T WANT TO KNOW all that.... And even if they did know the above, they'd NEVER, NEVER admit it... It goes against their agenda..

Well, there is that.