The AK-47...in the Washington Post

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Over Thanksgiving, I got into a nice discussion with one of my in laws about guns. He, being of the Michael Moore camp, was telling me how he has recently softened his position towards guns because he realized that if he was for social freedoms, he'll probably have to be at least warm to 2nd amendment freedoms too. I brought up my reasons for owning guns, which included enjoying historical collecting of them, their use in hunting, their use in target shooting, their use in personal defense, and I of course mentioned their Jeffersonian use: fighting tyranny. His response was that, "a rifle is useless against a man in a tank."

This is true. But we wouldn't have to shoot at the men in tanks, only the men in suits.

Today's Washington Post has an article by Larry Kahaner, author of "AK-47: The Weapon That Changed the Face of War".

The article is relatively neutral, and it reminds me why the AK-47 is my favorite weapon. I own two of them, and plan on adding at least an RPK (a long-barreled, squad machine gun version) to my collection at some point. The article does a great job of explaining how that simple rifle enables any citizen off the street to be able to effectively resist a modern army; examples of which include Iraq & Afghanistan.

Guns Preventing Crime in the News

It's hard to find a story on the mainstream news about guns preventing crime. As a result, people like Michael Moore tend to think that there are no possible civilian uses for handguns in a civilized society.

To help counter this, I've added three new links to my blog:

The NRA's Armed Citizen - a searchable database of self-defense news stories by state.

The Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog, which keeps track of news stories about civilians using guns to prevent crime. They also even report when those incidents don't go so well.

The other is keepandbeararms.com, a gun related forum & portal that also keeps an updated listing of news stories with civilians using guns to prevent crime.

"Nobody Wants to Take Your Guns."

Gun rights organizations are often criticized for not "compromising" or not agreeing to "reasonable" gun controls. Gun owners are chided for being paranoid, after all nobody wants to take away their guns.

First, the word compromise in this context is a misnomer. The term "give-back" or surrender is more appropriate because no guarantee against further erosion of gun owners' rights is ever put into law. The anti-control groups never receive concessions in return for any new gun control law.

Gun owners do have legitimate cause for concern. Although a majority of Americans do not want handguns outlawed, a significant minority does. In nation-wide polls taken over the last twenty-five years around 40% are in favor of banning the civilian possession of handguns. Almost 20% are in favor of banning the civilian possession of any kind of firearm.

Michael Moore: A Liberal's Pledge

In the wake of the recent Democratic victory, Michael Moore wrote us a letter:

I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you.

In this letter, he states what he wants the Democrats to do with their new power. What caught my attention was this:

We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.

My response?

1) Apparently Mr. Moore thinks that hunting is the only valid use of a gun. To that use I would add the sports of target shooting & sporting clays, and the more valid use of weapons in self defense, something Moore doesn't believe in. And of course, the Jeffersonian use of keeping the power of government in check, which is the best use for so called "assault weapons".

2) Apparently Mr. Moore has never heard of hunting with handguns, which does take place. And hunting with a handgun, is far more challenging than hunting with a rifle for a variety of reasons.

3) Apparently Mr. Moore didn't pay attention to the beliefs of many of the new Democratic Senators & Congressmen; the so called Blue Dog Democrats, who believe in protecting our 2nd Ammendment rights, like Senators John Tester & Jim Webb.

4) MOLON LABE, Mr. Moore, MOLON LABE.

I'm trying to be hopeful that the Democrats won't kick themselves in the nuts by trying to outlaw handguns or semi-automatic rifles, but given their long track record of self destruction, I don't have high hopes. The two dumbest things the Democrats could do with their new power would be to raise taxes & push gun control, as that would drive all those moderate voters who helped the Democrats achieve victory after 12 years of defeat back into the Republican camp.