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.

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.