While I am no Skeeter Skelton (besides, who could turn a phrase like Skeeter?) I am a frustrated gun writer, meaning I would love to be able to write for one of the popular firearms periodicals. Since this is unlikely I thought I would regale you with some of my experiences with firearms during the last forty years

I hope you enjoy this series of on-going recollections.

I was 16 years old when I received my first firearm, a .45 auto. It came with a Colt slide and an aluminum frame the make of which has long since been forgotten.

The first firearm I purchased when I turned 17 was an old Mossberg M-151 with the Mannlicher style stock. I paid $75.00 for it.

Times certainly have changed since then. I recall that I hitched a ride home, some 15 miles away, carrying my new rifle. Further, there was no background check or waiting period for rifles at that time.

The gun was manufactured around 1948 but was in great shape. I promptly purchased a Weaver scope for the Mossberg.

I thought it would be a good idea to mark the second Mossberg so I proceeded to carve my initials into the stock. Further, I decided that it would look better if it was “sporterized” so I removed the forward part of the stock and attempted to reshape the stock. I never completed the job and as I grew older I regretted butchering my rifle.

Then, in 2003 a co-worker introduced me to on-line auctions and I was able to find another stock, less the forward part. Since I still owned the forward portion I installed it on the newly acquired stock and was able to restore my Mossberg to its original condition. This included the hood over the front sight –which has a couple of different front sight posts to chose from—as well as a rear sight mounted at the rear of the barrel and a peep sight at the rear of the receiver which can be rotated 90 degrees to give clearance for the barrel mounted sight.

My Mossberg also has the original sling swivels which are becoming more difficult to find and when they can be found are a bit pricey.

I like the Mossberg M-151 so much that I purchased another one in 2000. I happened across it at a gun store in Southern California. It wasn’t as complete as my original M-151 but I was able to replace some of the missing parts from an on-line auction site that no longer allows the listing of most firearms parts. I installed my original Weaver scope on the second rifle.

It was 37 years ago that I purchased the first Mossberg .22 rifle. During that time I have parted with some guns but this one I still have.

Five or six years ago my dad gave me an old Remington Nylon 66 .22 rifle. The 66 had seen better days. The butt plate had been broken and part of it was missing. The stock, being made of a synthetic material was severely scratched and was in need of replacement.

Again I turned to on-line auctions as a source of replacement parts. I located what is called a “new, old stock” stock.

For a reasonable sum I was able to return the Remington to near new condition. What’s more, I listed the old, damaged stock on-line and it sold for more than I paid for the nicer replacement stock. Such a deal.

About the time I received the Remington, A friend presented me with the really nasty looking piece of rust. It somewhat resembled a rifle receiver with a bolt and barrel. After removing the rust, an extremely time consuming process, I found that it was in fact a receiver and barrel. In fact it was what was left of someone’s attempt to sporterize a Springfield 1903A3 rifle. I figured this would be an interesting project that would six to twelve months to complete.

Once again I searched on line for parts to restore this old rifle. The first thing I did was obtain a manual for the rifle so I could determine which parts I would need; then I began acquiring parts.

I determined that the barrel had been cut off just behind the front sight so a new barrel was needed. I found a new 1942 barrel and took everything to a local gunsmith (Ray Lynn) who replaced the barrel and blued the barrel and receiver.

After seeing how nice the newly blued receiver and barrel looked, I began purchasing the remaining parts required to restore this old rifle.

In about two months time I was able to completely restore the old rifle. It is quite a nice shooter. I am extremely pleased with the end result. I am also pleased that I was able to salvage a rifle that may have been tossed in the trash. If it hadn’t been for the fact that my friend knew of my interest in working on firearms it may have been consigned to the landfill.

Certainly, it isn’t an original 1903A3 but at least some aspect of history was saved and restored.

During the years I have learned the value of leaving a thing in the original condition. You won’t find me carving my initials into the stock anymore.

LE & CONCEALED CARRY/OPEN CARRY

I just read about two cases in which a police officer disarmed people who were legally carrying a firearm.

http://www.metrospirit.com/index.php?cat=11011612083586983&ShowArticle_ID=11011712084357501

If one has a permit to carry, or open carry is legal, why disarm someone? From a purely officer safety standpoint, I must say that I would have probably done the same when I was a cop and I expect an officer to request that I hand over my firearm if I were to be stopped for any reason. I don’t like it but I would comply.

When I was on patrol I routinely took possession of knives when I was questioning someone. However, I had reason other than the knife to stop the person. Interestingly, I never encountered a person with a firearm.

Further, I am conflicted concerning open carry. Doing so is inviting cops to shake you just to see what falls out. You have to expect it, especially when younger, less experienced cops are involved. Inexperienced cops tend to be overly cautious and lack a well developed sixth sense. It comes with experience. Plus, some cops just don't like it that anyone who ain't a cop is armed.

I also know that cops fabricate probable cause. In fact, cops lie about probable cause. I’ve seen it done and it has happened to me.

Unfortunately, most people become nervous when they see an armed person in public. I’ve seen it happen here in Vegas. I’ve also seen armed people totally ignored. But, if no one carries openly the general public will never get used to it.

If you carry openly, you are naïve if you don’t think the cops are gonna shake you down.

GUNS AND AMMO GETTING SMALLER

I don’t go anyplace unarmed these days. As I get older and more out of shape I am not as confident in my ability to overcome greater force.

I carry a really big gun with big bullets. Having been in law enforcement I carried a lot more stuff on my duty belt than I have to carry around now. So, a full size semi-auto loading pistol doesn’t seem all that heavy to me. I actually don’t notice the weight until it isn’t there. Of course, without all the other stuff as ballast I had to learn to avoid walking in circles.

I am a big advocate of the bigger the better school of thought. So are most of the gunriters I read.

So why is everyone so darned excited about all these little, itsy bitsy, teeny tiny pocket guns with rounds almost too small to hold and insert in the mag? Huh? What’s up with that?

I figure if you use a large caliber, if you miss a little you’ll probably still hit something vital.

VIOLENCE AND FORCE

Have you heard these neurotic anti-gun nuts talking about how using violence doesn’t help matters?

Overcoming violence with whatever means necessary or at hand is not violence.

Violence is when a bad guy attempts to do me harm or does in fact do me harm. If I stop the bad guy’s violent behavior with a double tap to the chest, that is utilizing force. I suppose if I was furiously angry and yelling obscenities as I was placing lead on target and kicked the guy when he was down that might be considered violent.

Personally, I dislike violence, that’s why I don’t engage in it. I also won’t tolerate it around me.

“Would-be burglar”

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-etmustopb5955749dec08,0,3086165.story

If someone broke into a home he is a burglar. Just because he didn’t come away with anything doesn’t mean he isn’t a burglar.

“Casings”

Television show, reporters, even cops get this one wrong. You’ve heard them. They say: “We found empty casings in the bedroom.” They are not casings, they are cases.

“Arsenal/Armory”

This is another one that the MSM likes to use. “The police found an arsenal in his home.” They are referring to the guns. My dictionary defines armories as arsenals and arsenals as places where firearms are made or kept. A rifle, a shotgun and two pistols do not an arsenal make. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/armory    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arsenal

"Bullets"

How about when the CSI guys dig a bullet out of a wall and declare that the bullet was fired from a 9mm Sig-Sauer. Don't you love that? Anyone want to comment on how many different guns or calibers use the same bullets?

"Silencers"

As much as I enjoy NCIS, I cringe when I hear Abby say: “You can tell the bullet came from a gun with a silencer because of the striations the silencer made on the bullet.” ARRRRGH! I won’t even bother about the use of the word “silencer.” Well, maybe I’ll just say I like; “Sound Reduction System.”

Bullets don’t come into contact with the sound reduction system. That would be bad if it did. Before you ask, yes, I have fired several suppressed firearms and I own a suppressor for a .22 pistol. They are legal in Nevada, you know.

Of course we all love it when the character in a TV show opens the cylinder of a double action revolver and spins it and we hear it click several times as it is spinning.

Continuity problems are always fun.  A character is shown from the front then the rear and then the front again and his gun is cocked, then it isn't then it is.

I always love it when I hear a 1911 style handgun click several times to indicate that the character has run out of ammo and the slide is in battery.

"Knives"

I dislike watching a person on a TV show throw a knife from an unknown distance at a person and kill the person, instantly. Do you have any idea how hard it is to learn to throw a throwing knife, a knife designed for throwing? It ain’t easy.

I would love to hear of two verified accounts in which someone actually killed another person with a thrown knife in combat.

http://stores.ebay.co.uk/SHARP-ASSORTMENT_Fixed-Blade-Knife_W0QQfsubZ18115277 Thanks to Bond’s House of Cutlery, Las Vegas, Nevada, my favorite knife store.

If you go to a gun show to purchase a firearm from a dealer you will be subjected to a background check. Period. No gun show loop hole. However, I think (someone correct me if I’m wrong) what people (gun banners; congress critters, etc.) mean is that occasionally there are private individuals who desire to sell a firearm for whatever reason and figures the best place to sell a gun is to go some place where people are buying guns. Private party transaction. This is not a “loop hole.” Private party transactions –in most states, not the SPRofK—private party sales are legal without involving a licensed by BATFE dealer (FFL).

Same thing as if you were to advertise in you local news paper (where applicable; legal; allowed, etc.).

Which brings us to UNLICENSED DEALERS. There is no such animal as an “unlicensed dealer.” If he doesn’t have a license, he ain’t a dealer; he is a private party type individual person who would like to unload –as it were—a firearm.

This is sorta like what one of my LE instructors told us about California not being a common law state: “If it ain’t writ, it ain’t law.” So, no license means he ain’t a dealer, only a person who is selling a gun.

Next, we have ASSAULT WEAPONS, or rather we don’t have assault weapons. There ain’t no such thing as an assault weapon, only guns that that some maroon has decided that he doesn’t like because it is black and looks evil (Evil Black Rifles or EBR) and has features that make it LOOK like a military style firearm. I DON’T EVEN THINK THERE IS ANY SUCH THING AS AN “Assault Rifle.”

Pop Quiz: Can anyone tell me what AR as in AR-15 means?

Frankly, I don’t understand why someone would be concerned about a bayonet lug on a rifle. I would love to hear of a single case where someone was injured or killed as a result of a drive-by bayoneting. I wonder if anyone has ever been killed with a bayonet fixed to a rifle outside of combat.

I could see that there might be a problem with being bayoneted if people were walking around with rifles with bayonets attached and stabbing people on the street. I’ll bet it would be tough to get out of a crazed bayoneter’s path. I just haven’t heard of there being a rash of bayonetings, attached to rifles or otherwise.

I recall reading that DiFi stated that EBR were designed to be fired from the hip to maximize the killing effectiveness or some such nonsense. Have you ever tried to even hold an AR-15 at the hip. The one feature that she said enabled one to do this, the “conspicuously protruding pistol grip” is the feature that makes this impractical. Perhaps if the rifle was full-auto and you had enough ammo so you could correct/adjust your fire, it might be possible.

I attended a sub-machine gun course in which the owner of the training facility demonstrated an Uzi, fired full-auto and rapidly swept back and forth across 4 or 5 targets until the gun ran dry. A couple of the targets didn’t receive a single hit. A couple had non-lethal hits and one target may have received a single lethal hit. Twenty rounds and possibly one lethal hit when the Uzi was fired more or less from the hip. Go figure.

I will stick with controlled, deliberate, aimed fire, thank you very much.

When I was with the PD in the 1970’s I carried a Smith & Wesson M-59. This is a 9mm, double action pistol with a magazine capacity of 13 rounds. During this time no one ever heard of a “high capacity magazine” or “assault weapon” for that matter.

So, for some reason, at some point in time, someone decided that I was more of a threat because I had 3 more rounds available before I had to reload? Actually, if my department had allowed it I would have carried my Colt Government Model .45 ACP semi-auto, with eight rounds (bigger is always better, don’t you know?).

So how about we use the terms “single stack” and “double stack” or “wide body” mags?

Here’s the kicker about the previous ban on standard magazines; They banned the manufacture and sales of mags that held more than 10 rounds but the ban didn’t require anyone to surrender existing mags. So, I kept my 13 and 14 round magazines for my Smith and my 30 round mags for my M1 Carbine. Kinda makes one wonder about the folks in charge, eh?

Of course I wonder about them anyway. I would like to see forced retirement of those nuts in Congress when they start showing obvious signs of dementia, Alzheimer’s, stupidity, irrationality, insanity or other mental disorders and extreme old age. Maybe they should be subjected to a background check before being allowed to take office or introduce legislation. We could use another supreme court just to take a look at some of the proposed legislation just to see if it passes a basic common sense test.

Speaking of common sense, I must say that I am in favor of COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS according to what I think is common sense. Here’s my criteria: If you are a bad guy and you get caught with a gun you go to prison for a very, very long time. Everyone else should be able to own whatever kind of firearm one desires.

This is not as odd as it may appear to some people. Consider this: in the State of Nevada, I can own any fully automatic firearm (machine gun or sub-machine gun) that I could afford to buy. Lots of people in the United States own full auto weapons. Fifty percent of all full auto weapons in the United States are owned by some government agency; the other fifty percent are owned by private individuals. Further, since 1934 only one crime has been committed with a privately owned machine gun and that person was a cop.

We just don’t see law-abiding people using legally owned machine guns in crimes.

I’m not talking about instances such as that North Hollywood bank robbery. Those people were criminals so they don’t count.

Someone please tell me what a GUN CRIME is? Why is a crime in which a gun is used to kill someone any gosh darn different from a crime in which a knife or car or hammer or pitchfork or crossbow is used to kill someone?

This is exactly what indicates to me that people are only interested in taking our guns away. Some nut can kill a half dozen people with a knife or a car and you never hear a word about banning and confiscating privately owned knives and cars.

The gun banners are not interested in stopping crime. They blame the gun, not the evil SOB who did the killing. They are not interested in keeping these crazy people in prison for the rest of their lives and don’t even think about executing the Adam Henry.

Oh, no, they want to take our guns away from us law-abiding people and leave us defenseless victims.

So, when O bama and the socialists in congress even whisper anything about GUN SHOW LOOPHOLES, UNLICENSED DEALERS, ASSAULT WEAPONS, HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES or COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS, tell them no, very loudly.

Buy more guns and ammo and 30 rounds mags. Write, call and email your legislator and tell them “NO, this far and no farther.”

Next up: let's repeal some of the 20000 plus existing gun laws.

However, I noticed what I consider to be points missed that should be considered.

Belts

I recently read two excellent articles concerning holster choices but no mention was made of the belt that carries the holster and firearm.

No matter how small and light the handgun or how good the holster is, if your belt is not of good quality, you will have trouble with both.

To that end I purchased a wide, stiff, nylon Bianchi belt with hook and loop closure. This belt is as wide as the loops on my Levi’s and my Galco holster. When I draw my full size Colt auto the holster stays in place preventing the gun from binding. As good as the holster is if the belt were narrow and flimsy, I would not be able to affect a smooth draw.

Further, the wide, stiff belt supports and evenly distributes the weight of the large frame auto (in addition to my knife) well enough that I hardly notice its presence. In my opinion, a wide, sturdy belt also helps to distribute the weight of a large frame auto better than a narrow belt. I found this to be true from my time in law enforcement and that experience carries off nicely to civilian life. Additionally, I have found that the stiff belt actually helps support my aging lower back.

Gun Choices

I like big guns. I like the feel of a large gun in my hand. I also like to know that if it is needed in a serious social encounter the gun and caliber I choose will be more than adequate.

Yes, I know, it is better to have a smaller gun that you will carry rather than the large gun you don’t but I think that the larger the caliber the better. I submit that a larger caliber handgun is always better than a small caliber. If I do find it necessary to shoot a bad guy I don’t want him shooting back.

Car Guns

When I drive I always wear a seat belt.

Wearing a seat belt in a car renders my carry gun ineffective as the belt crosses over the gun therefore I also carry a car gun.

My car gun is a 2 ½” S&W M-686. I keep the Smith on the passenger seat where it is easily accessible if needed.

I also carry a Colt Officer’s Model as a back-up. I carry extra magazines for both Colt’s as well as speed loaders for the Smith in my bag.

My car gun also doubles as my desk drawer gun at work and night table gun at home. While many people can’t carry a gun at work, I am lucky enough to work for a company that employs a number of other firearms aficionados who don’t particularly mind that I, and several other employees are armed during the course of the work day.

I carry at least three guns. My theory is I would prefer to switch guns rather than reload if possible.

Away from the Car

When I go into a convenience store I take a few seconds to size up the situation, or rather determine if there is a situation that I would rather not have to deal with but may have to confront anyway.

I would like to say first that I DO NOT advise you to confront a bad situation unless it is absolutely your last resort.

If I have walk into a bad situation I would rather not be surprised. Since I make an effort to frequent familiar establishments I am recognized by the clerks as a regular. I make eye contact with the clerk to determine if he/she appears to be nervous. I then check other shopper’s locations and their appearance/demeanor in the large convex security mirrors.

Further, while I rarely use a cell phone, I always keep mine with me so that I can call 911. If at all possible, I would rather call the police and be a good witness instead of having to be interviewed by the cops as the person who shot and or killed a suspected robber. While I have made up my mind that I will not be a victim of a thug and I will shoot if necessary, I would rather not if it can be avoided.

Further, after dark, I chose to park my vehicle farther from the entrance, away from other cars. I figure that if my car is parked away from other cars, anyone loitering near my car is someone who may be intent on breaking into my car or doing me harm.

Concealed Carry

Although the next point has been covered I think it deserves mentioning again.

Most people who chose to carry a firearm don’t want to have to shoot someone however when you decide to carry a firearm you should always remember that you may have to use the gun.

If you do find it necessary to shoot someone you better be in the right. Even if you are in the right you will probably have prove it.

So, my last bit of advice is to have an attorney on retainer to represent you in the event you do find it necessary to use your firearm.

Remember, don’t be evasive with the police but it is not necessary to speak to them without an attorney present.

I have heard the following argument on several occasions in the past and again yesterday as to why the Second Amendment as a guarantee that the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms is obsolete: “Armed with only rifles and pistols, how could you possibly prevail against the Army?”

That question in and of itself should be a self-evident answer as to why the Second Amendment is in place and why it is important that we not allow it to be undermined.

All throughout history there have been many military conflicts in which an outnumbered and out-gunned force was able to either hold their own for a significant time and/or prevail in the conflict.

They also had talented and dedicated people who were able to design and manufacture weapons under extremely trying circumstances.

People who use this as an argument, I suspect, aren’t fully informed about a number of things including the fact that there more armed people in the United States than there are military personnel, the dedication of those armed people to protect and defend freedom and liberty, that the illegal use of the military against the civilian population would certainly be met with intense resistance, probably in the form of guerilla warfare, and the possibility that many members of the military may refuse to follow illegal orders to attack the civilian population.

Further, people don’t realize that it wouldn’t take many armed citizens to overpower some elements of the military and take control of the more advanced weapons at hand.

Consider the use of the Liberator pistol provided to the French resistance during WWII. These cheaply made, single shot pistols (I’m told that it took longer to reload one than to manufacture one) was used to eliminate a single enemy soldier and take his arms.

Although I am unable to locate the source of this bit of info, I recall hearing that the Rhodesian military was ordered not to fire their weapons on full-auto in order to conserve ammo when faced with a vastly superior force that was constantly re-supplied by the Soviet Union. The Rhodesians were able to hold their own for some time in the face of a larger force.

One must also consider how the Soviet Army was eventually defeated by the people of Afghanistan.

However, I find the idea that a person could even consider the possibility that the United States government would use the military against the civilian population to be more than a little disturbing.

Seriously, how could anyone suggest such a possibility? Are they suggesting that the United States federal government would deploy tanks and aircraft against us?

No, I think it unlikely that the U.S. government would do that. Certainly the government is aware of two things: one that to mobilize the military against civilians is illegal and second they know what the response would be.  They do know this, don't they?

Actually, I think a greater threat is the militarization of the local police but I will leave that for another discussion.

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.

I recently had an epiphany of sorts, thanks to a video I watched by Penn & Teller called Bull$#it! 309 Gun Control.

I have read the Second Amendment and I thought I understood the meaning of the Second Amendment. I have listened to people, so-called experts on both sides of the gun control argument, express their ideas as to the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Now, I’ve always understood that the need for and the purpose of the Second Amendment was for the PEOPLE to be able to rise up and defend themselves from a federal government becoming tyrannical and turning against the people.

Anti-gun people contend that the MILITIA referred to in the Second Amendment is a standing federal army or the National Guard and that the Second Amendment provides for same.

The MILITIA, in this case, is viewed by gun proponents the same as an armed populace that can be deployed along with a standing army (just as occurred during the recent Revolutionary War) in the event of attack from without.

However, I would suggest that the MILITIA refers to a standing army that the PEOPLE would have to defend against.

It is the comma after the phrase “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,” that is at the center of the dispute.

That comma has caused a lot of misunderstanding, in addition to the brief wording of the Second Amendment. Two hundred years later, we don’t understand the Second Amendment, in part because we have not recently fought a war of independence from an oppressive government.

Additionally, there is the fact that our use and understanding of certain words has changed during the last 200 years.

Further, since that time, a well regulated militia of the people, organized and properly trained has not been maintained. On the other hand, the federal government has maintained a well regulated military.

In order for the Unites States to be able to defend itself against foreign attack, a standing army is necessary that the people of the United States may remain a free people, a free state. However, because we are fearful that a central, Federal government, with command and control of said standing army, may, at some point in time become an oppressive government just as the one that we recently threw off, and may deploy said standing army against the civilian population, said civilian population, the PEOPLE, shall have the right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed by the Federal government.

I cannot ascertain the reason the founders chose to write the Second Amendment the way they did, however, I believe I now know exactly what they meant.

I suggest that you view Penn & Teller’s video and you will too.

Please be aware that Penn Jillette tends to use colorful, vulgar, obscene language, but he makes the point quite well what the Second Amendment is for.

While some people may say that it would be fruitless to go up against our modern military with the small arms available to us, an idea that I may address at a later date, the fact is, the Second Amendment was written for such a purpose at that time and is still in place today. I will say that I find it hard to believe that the founders would have imagined that our military would possess weapons that the people would not have access to, either by denial or impractical to possess.

The fact remains that the government, by law, cannot infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms.

The need for the people to be armed is even more necessary today, to throw off an oppressive government, no matter how futile such an attempt may be.

Further, with the threat of terrorism in our country, local governments may fail. During times of natural disasters, to defend against gangs of looters, it is vital that the people be armed in order to defend home and community.

However, even if the Second Amendment wasn’t written for the specific purpose of armed defense against criminals, that the Second Amendment exists allows us to present an armed defense against criminals who would do us harm.

Our freedom and liberty is dependent upon that right.

I would also like to include here a quote attributed to Ronald Reagan about freedom: “Freedom is indivisible – there is no ‘s’ on the end of it. You can erode freedom, diminish it, but you cannot divide it and chose to keep ‘some freedoms’ while giving up others.”

We are either a free people or we are not. We have certain liberties but when those liberties are curtailed we cease to be a free people.

That being said, any law that curtails our ability to arm ourselves as envisioned by the founders is inconsistent with the Second Amendment and therefore illegal.

That being the case the Second Amendment and gun control are by their very nature at odds with each other.

I recently watched an episode of Lock and Load on the History Channel. The episode was hosted by retired Marine Gunnery Sergeant R. Lee Ermey.

This show confirmed a view that I have held for several years now which dispenses with the argument that the Second Amendment only applies to the type of firearms that were in existence at the time it was written and that the country’s founding fathers could not have imagined today’s modern firearms; that modern firearms are directly descended from the very first firearm.

I grant you that the founders probably didn’t conceive of the actual design of certain modern guns but they certainly were able to conceive of the concept. It is my understanding that the founders were highly educated and intelligent men, men who read and studied classical writings. Surely, then, these men were aware of Da Vinci’s multi-barrel cannon design.

However, to take this argument to the First Amendment, I seriously doubt that the founders ever conceived of the idea that news could be transmitted by radio, television or the internet. They probably never even thought of the telegraph. The science behind all of those things was unheard of at the time.

Further, consider that this piece was generated with a word processing program and stored on a computer. If the founders were faced with this document, would they have considered it to be “papers” which would be protected as a right under the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights? The Supreme Court of the United States does. I am quite certain that the founders would have been amazed at the technology but they would have been able to see the natural progression of quill & vellum to a WORD file when shown all of the intermediate advancements.

Most people today see that connection. Of this I am certain, because no one wants to ban my computer and printer as a weapon of mass communication that didn’t exist when the First Amendment was written.

Therefore, would the founders have been amazed to see a modern, semi-automatic rifle? No doubt they would but they probably would have seen the direct connection with the firearms of their day. Upon being handed an M-14 rifle, General George Washington would have immediately recognized it for what it was. He might even have been able to figure out what a typewriter was. On the other hand, what might he have thought of our current form of communication such as radio, television, the internet, a computer or even a telephone?

Just as society has advanced our technology from horses & buggies to automobiles, we have advanced our firearms technology.

However, the advancement in firearms technology has not been nearly as swift as other technology. For example, automobiles and airplanes have been in existence slightly more than one hundred years whereas firearms have been in existence for more than five hundred years and firearms improvement has been exceedingly limited.

If firearm advancement had been in line with other technological advancement, firearms would have been at the phaser (charged particle beam) stage by now.

As to the concept of the founders not being able to conceive of fifty caliber firearms, or even seen the need or value in them, click on the link below:

http://www.davekopel.org/NRO/2001/Guns-and-Character-Assassination.htm

Here, Dave Kopel has shown that many of the weapons of the founder’s day were fifty caliber or larger. I would be willing to wager that the founders would have marveled at our modern firearms design and development but they certainly would have been able to see the value in them. They would also have been able to see the natural progression from flintlock to cap lock to full-auto firearms, from muzzle loader to cartridge rifles, from single shot to semi-auto, just as they were able to see that same natural progression from fire-stick to matchlock to wheel lock to flintlock.

If we were to apply anti-gun group’s premise about firearms to the entire Bill of Rights we would have to do away with cars, trains and planes. We would be obliged to eliminate from society all forms of modern communication and printing methods including ball point pens.

WI: Obama election triggers 82% jump in state handgun sales

WA: Change already has come to gun stores

WV: Gun sales surge after Obama presidential victory

NV: Guns are 'flying off the shelf'

The run on guns

Obama election triggers national gun rush

Gun Sales On The Rise Over Obama Gun Control Fears

These are just a few of the headlines for the last couple of days about the up tick in firearms purchases since O bama was elected ruler of the country. The FBI has reported that gun purchase background checks are up 49%.

I attended a gun show in Las Vegas, Nevada Saturday where I spoke to several vendors that I have known for several years. They told me about their inability to maintain in stock rifles, magazines, powder and primers and loaded ammunition.

At 9:00 Saturday morning the line to get into the gun show extended the length of the building and around the corner. When I arrived the line wasn’t much shorter and was just as long when I finally paid for my ticket and went inside.

As I was waiting in line to get in I saw dozens of people leaving with boxes of ammo. I don’t mean a couple of 50 round boxes. These were 500 round boxes.

I have never seen so many people leaving the show with new rifles. The rifles people are buying are the EBR (Evil Black Rifle) variety (I use the phrase EBR because I despise the phrase “assault weapon” as there is no such critter, and to mock intolerant, irrational, hopolophobes in this country).

Just 3 or 4 months ago I spoke to a friend who usually has a table at this gun show and he told me that he was probably going to stop selling at the shows because people were just not buying guns. He told me that people just didn’t have money for guns. That situation appears to have changed.

You may also be interested to know that the cost of entry to the gun show was $14.00 and parking was an additional $3.00. While I heard many complaints about the rising cost of admission, the room where the show was held was packed.

Based on the headlines I have seen during the last eleven days it is no secret that We,The People are buying firearms in greater numbers since the election which has been directly attributed to the concerns people have about O bama’s past comments and actions in the Illinois State Senate about gun control. Further, we are all to well aware of the Socialist Party’s desire to:

limit the number of firearms we can own and/or purchase;

define the type of firearms we can possess;

how many rounds a magazine may hold;

limit the caliber of firearms we may be allowed to possess;

require owners to be registered;

require firearms to be registered;

ban firearms;

confiscate firearms

Clearly, gun owners are sending a message to the Socialist Party. The message is obviously a challenge to anyone who is considering confiscating firearms. I hope they take note of this. I am certain that they haven’t missed it.

The people stocking up on firearms and related items surely wouldn’t be buying all these guns to just meekly submit to confiscation, especially after all the expense involved during these trying economic times.

Just to make certain that these people haven’t missed all this, I plan to e-mail Harry Reid (S-Searchlight) and bring it to his attention that gun owners are passionate about their God-given right to own firearms.

As an aside, did you know that approximately one half of all automatic firearms in the United States are owned by civilians? It’s true. If you would like to see some people having a lot of fun you might want to consider attending a machine gun match in Las Vegas. Or you might want to go to one of several gun stores in Las Vegas where you can rent and shoot (after some instruction and under a watchful eye) a sub-machine gun.

The following is a response to an article in the TYLERPAPER.COM: Certain Guns Only Belong on The Battlefield.

Certain guns only belong on the battle field. I assume that people are thinking of civilian versions of military rifles when they make a statement such as this. Liberals have been successful in portraying some semi-automatic rifles as military weapons. A great number of people have been duped into believing this. Civilian versions of military weapons are not suitable for the battlefield; that is why the military doesn’t use them. Military weapons such as the M-16/M4 are fully automatic. This means that when the trigger is pressed the rifle fires and continues to fire until the trigger is released or the weapon fires a short burst. In contrast, the civilian versions such as the AR-15 fire ONE round when the trigger is depressed. The trigger must then be released to reset before another round can be fired. This is called a SEMI-AUTO rifle. Further, the civilian versions of the M-16 only differ in appearance to other rifles that are generally considered to be acceptable. For example: the Ruger Mini 14 fires the same ammunition as the M-16 and the civilian counterparts. The Mini 14 has a wood stock whereas the AR-15 has a “plastic” stock. In practical terms, the AR-15 and the Mini 14 are the same.

It is bewildering that people don’t see a practical use for the AR-15 type semi-automatic rifle. The fact is, people who don’t, can’t or won’t see the practical uses of these semi-auto rifles simply don’t understand what there are or are afraid of something they know nothing about, or are the willing dupes of those whose only desire (as regards firearms) is to use this rifle as an emotional wedge issue with which to incrementally disarm a law-abiding populace.

As to the practical use of a firearm that has no battlefield use consider a few legitimate civilian uses: self-defense; target practice, varmint & predator control.

Certainly, a rifle is not always the best first choice for self defense, however, if these are taken away by an oppressive government, there may be no stopping said government from taking other types of firearms such as semi-auto handguns. Semi-auto rifles could be the best defense in some cases.

Many people enjoy the benign pastime on the range target shooting. What difference does it make if the rifle is a .223 Remington or a .308 Winchester?

Farmers and ranchers have a legitimate use for an AR-15 semi-auto rifle; varmint and predator control. The light rifle and manageable recoil is ideal for this purpose.

I find it inconceivable that anyone can be so arrogant as to tell me that I shouldn’t be allowed to own a particular type of anything. How dare you! I am a law-abiding, former police officer, responsible gun owner.

One last point; there are a number of automobiles that have no useful purpose except on the racetrack. These automobiles are capable of traveling at speeds in excess of 150 MPH. Explain to me the practical use for such a car, especially when one considers the number of auto fatalities involving cars that can’t even come close to 150 mph.

But we don’t even consider banning really fast cars. Why not?

I tend to be a bit opinionated. Some things are great the way they are and shouldn’t be changed. I like what I like. I like original configurations of things, especially guns. I like the configuration of something as it was the first time I saw something or the first one I owned. I am a traditionalist and I don’t like change and I accept change grudgingly.

For example, the Smith & Wesson Model 29 originally had a large, square butt/grip. The first M-29 I owned in the 1970’s came with that configuration. I liked it. It felt good in my hand and I was able to use the extra wood at the bottom rear of the grip to leverage the long 8-3/8” barrel up.

Now, Smith & Wesson is offering the M-29 with a round butt. That just ain’t right. Don’t get me wrong. I own a Model 686 with a round butt as my car gun however, it also comes with a 2 1/2” barrel. Not so much weight way out front.

Further, they have included a scalloped cylinder release and a hammer lock. The hammer lock, which, in my opinion, is a waste and was probably included, in part, as a result of our litigious society. In my opinion, they caved. Yes, I am aware that the company that purchased Smith & Wesson is the company who invented the hammer lock and so decided to include it in new offerings. The scalloped cylinder release really screwed up the classic lines of their revolvers.

It seems to me that most of Smith & Wesson’s newer offerings tend to look a bit too futuristic to me. My opinion is that if a gun looks like a space gun or a ray gun, it better shoot a beam that vaporizes the target.

Colt Gold Cup pistols should have a flat top, not a round top slide. The round top slide is a Government Model feature. However, I have seen Government Models, Officer’s Models and Combat Commanders with a flat top slide and I think their appearance is extremely attractive, but still not traditional.

Speaking of Commander Models; The Colt Combat Commander came with a rounded hammer spur. The Commander style hammer belongs on Commanders and Officer’s Models, not Gold Cups.

However, with the advent of the wide, upswept, beavertail grip safety, the Commander hammer is the only option. So, I have a Gold Cup Trophy with a round top slide and a Commander hammer. It also has a Bomar type rear sight! And worse yet, it has a dove-tailed front sight, which I replaced with a fiber optic sight. What is the world coming to?

At least the Gold Cup still has the wide trigger. That’s something, anyway.

Granted, the dove-tail front sight is less likely to be shot off the slide, and the Bomar style rear sight is more robust, but they still screw up the classic lines of the Gold Cup.

So why did I buy a Gold Cup with features that I consider non-traditional? Practicality is the answer. I was shooting IPSC and steel matches and I wanted a reliable gun. My traditional Gold Cup lost a rear sight pin during a match. I had to switch guns during the match. Also, I shot someone else’s Kimber with a dove-tailed fiber optic front sight and I liked it, especially with my weak, aging eyes. I knew of a gun store in town that happened to have a Gold Cup Trophy (with the dove-tailed front sight) so I bought it. I didn’t want to alter a Gold Cup National Match so I bought a $900.00 gun so I could put a $40.00 sight on it.

And another thing, what’s up with forward cocking grooves? They are just something else to screw up those classic lines. I have a Government Model with the forward cocking grooves that I use as my carry gun. I originally bought it for IPSC matches but replaced it with the Gold Cup mentioned previously. I never use the forward cocking grooves to check to see if the gun is loaded as it is always loaded.

OK, so is just me or is there something wrong with a short grip frame on a Ruger Old Army with a 7 1/2” barrel. Do you know how hard it is to handle and shoot a big gun like that with medium to large size hands?

I replaced the small grip frame on my stainless Old Army with a brass grip frame from a 3-screw Super Blackhawk. Looks nice, too.

And what about the Super Blackhawk? Shouldn’t that gun have a large grip frame with the square trigger guard and non-fluted cylinder?

Don’t get me wrong, I own a several Colts, S&Ws and Rugers. I just wonder why they have to change things.

By far, my favorite guns are Colt’s. But I wonder why they dropped the Detective Special, the Python and the Diamondback (among others) from the product line. Actually, they don’t offer a single double action revolver anymore. I wonder why, when Smith & Wesson still offers a number of double action revolvers.

I also can’t figure out why they don’t produce the Model “O” in .22 LR or at least offer a conversion unit for the Model “O” when other companies do.

I also wonder why manufacturers don’t offer guns that collector’s price so much. Have you seen how much people are willing to pay for a Colt Magnum Carry? The Blue book of Gun Values lists the Magnum Carry as being worth about $500.00. People are buying them for $1,000.00 on GunBroker and GunsAmerica. I know because that is what I paid for mine, without the box or papers.

Just what are these manufacturers thinking when they decide to change something that has worked for decades?

People like things the way they are or were. If that isn’t true why are automobile manufacturers going “retro” producing new old cars like the Thunderbird or Challenger which look more like the originals than new cars?