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.

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.

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?