|
|
|
Welcome to Outdoor Life
Subscribe to Outdoor Life
Free Gift with Paid Order
Recent Comments
Categories
Recent PostsArchivesSyndicate   The Gun Shots |
July 13, 2009
Abraham Lincoln And 'Assault Weapons' - 14
by Doug Painter
On an August afternoon in 1863, Christopher Spencer made his way to the White House with a rifle in hand.
The gun he was carrying, and which he had invented, was significantly different from traditional rifles of the time that could only be fired once before having to be reloaded. The new Spencer Repeating rifle could be loaded with seven cartridges in a tubular magazine and featured a lever under the trigger. When the lever was pushed down and then brought back up, the spent casing of the round that was fired was ejected and a new round was automatically fed into the chamber. Upon arriving at the White House, Spencer, President Lincoln and a naval aide walked over to a small park near the Treasury Building where the aide set up a makeshift pine board target so that Lincoln could test the new rifle himself. Repeatedly hitting the target, Lincoln was impressed with the accuracy, rapid-fire and multi-shot capabilities of the Spencer and immediately recommended the rifle to the Army. Soon tens of thousands of Spencer rifles were being delivered to Union troops.
While the Spencer Repeating Arms Company foundered after the war, lever-action rifles, notably those produced by the Winchester Repeating Arms Company, became tremendously popular rifles among pioneers, hunters and homesteaders for the very same reasons they were popular among the troops in the Civil War. More compact, lighter, and easier to handle, they offered the owner quick and multiple shots before reloading. One of President Theodore Roosevelt’s favorite hunting rifles was a Winchester lever-action Model 1895.
If the anti-gun movement had been active in the late 19th century, they well have labeled such rapid-fire, high capacity magazine rifles as the “assault weapons” of their day. And it would have been as inaccurate then as it is today to label a civilian sporting rifle an “assault weapon.”
For well over a century, many of our most popular sporting rifles have directly evolved from a service rifle of a particular era. Battlefield requirements in a rifle such as accuracy, ruggedness, reliability and fast follow-up shots are features equally sought by hunters and target shooters.
The bolt-action centerfire rifle, for many decades America’s classic deer hunting rifle, is a descendent of the First World War battle rifle, the 1903 Springfield. The bolt-action of the Springfield offered smooth and rapid cycling of the action and allowed for the use of a more powerful cartridge, the .30/06, accurate at ranges out to 1000 yards. More than a hundred years later, the .30/06 remains as America’s most popular big game hunting cartridge.
The first semi-automatic (one shot per pull of the trigger) U.S. service rifle, the Springfield .30 M-1, popularly known as the Garand, saw service initially in the Second World War. Not long after the war, a wide range of semi-automatic hunting rifles as well as semi-automatic shotguns were developed by sporting arms manufacturers and have gained widespread popularity among both hunters and clay target shooters.
Today, the AR-15 looks like the M-16 service rifle that first saw combat in Vietnam. To be sure, the AR-15 does not look like a traditional sporting rifle. Neither, in their time, did the Spencer or the Springfield. What the AR-15 does look like is the latest iteration of a modern rifle that employs advanced technology and ergonomic design to produce an exceptionally reliable, rugged and accurate sporting rifle. Produced in different configurations and chambered in a variety of calibers, AR-type rifles not only can be used for, indeed are exceptionally well suited to, many types of hunting, precision target shooting as well as personal protection. In recent years, AR-type rifles have become among the most popular sporting rifles sold in the United States.
Unfortunately, some anti-gun organizations have worked hard to mislead the public by calling the civilian versions of service rifles, “assault weapons.” This anti-gun strategy is a clever ploy, much in the same way that prohibitionists labeled alcoholic beverages, “demon rum.” True “assault weapons” are in fact light machine guns capable of fully automatic fire. Machine guns of all types have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934. While AR-type rifles do look different, they function the same way as models of semi automatic rifles and shotguns (one shot per pull of the trigger) that have been in the sporting marketplace for many decades.
From the Kentucky rifle to the most modern sporting arm, accuracy has always been the hallmark of the American rifle. Accuracy should too be the hallmark of any firearms debate.
(Mr. Painter is senior advisor with the National Shooting Sports Foundation, trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry.)
|
|
OutdoorLife.com is part of the Bonnier Outdoor Group Network
Copyright © 2009 Bonnier Corp. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Comments (14)
Good article.
What we need is a President who will build a private outdoor shooting range on Pennsylvania Avenue. Wouldn't that be something. Hmmm, is there an indoor handgun range in the White House for the Secret Service? Imagine someone toting a new design rifle to the White House today, "I'd like to show this the President ...."
Regarding introduction on new types of firearms to the public ... Hunters and shooters tend to be a very traditional and conservative bunch. I imagine that ex-military folks have always been the biggest proponent of the firearms they used in the service, and on the leading edge of their use for hunting and shooting sports. Gives us more choices. That is good.
As for anti-gun groups, they, like PETA and HSUS, have no facts to go on, just emotion. Unfortunately, emotion is powerful enough for the uninformed to become their truth.
Did'nt they say somting like, "Spencer rifles, load em' on Sunday and shhot all week."
Where's pol's like "Honest Abe" when we need them ?
Doug Painter talks about misconceptions regarding the labeling of modern sporting arms as 'assault rifles'. He claims that it is unfair to judge a book by its cover and he points to past evolutions of firearms to support his position. I would agree with Doug that this is a case of perception but when the common perception is running contrary to your cause you are in serious jeopardy. Why? Because perception in an information age that looks to provide quick answers doesn't need reason to support any of its answers. The public wants the abridged version of the story and if that can be told with a single image or a comic book news caption so be it. This is more than a matter of perception, it is a matter of timing and of forces that were not a factor previously. America in the 1800's did not have gun control issues let alone a growing discontent amongst the general population bent on curtailing the ownership of firearms and a media anxious to give voice to their concerns. I have said it before in this forum. Taking an assault type firearm into the field is like putting gasoline on a fire. Doug, you have put together a tidy little piece here. I would hope your words are not well received by most of the firearms users because this type of argument is what I would call "pissing into the wind" when it comes to furthering the cause of the average firearm owner.
Mike,
There are stories of Reagan visiting the secret service range and borrowing the agent's pistols to shoot snakes in his ranch pond.
If Palin were to run and win maybe her whole family would be out back the White House testing guns....turn the bowling alley into a rifle range, add some mounts to inside decor?
Later,
Charlie
So Kody, if my or Doug's remarks defending our rights to use any firearm we want as the founding fathers wanted offends certain people or groups then we should give up our first amendment rights as well as the second so that " we don't piss into the wind". The trouble with giving in or "compromise" is that the other side is never satisfied until they have it all.
Firedog11 you make a good point to Kody. If his point were valid then we all need to use the "assualt" rifles moe in the field if for no other reason than to get folks use to seeing them.
All we have to do is look the gun owners situation in Canada to see what soft appeasement will do to your rights.
"A right not excercised is a right lost."
Well written article with valid perception.
In regards to the comment by Kody: "Taking an assault type firearm into the field is like putting gasoline on a fire." On the contrary. The 'assault rifle' used in hunting doesn't look like its military counterpart; i.e.. camo finish, no carry handle (flat top for optics), hunting calibers, a five round or less magazine. As far as 'pissing in the wind' it can be done. The general population is not growing to curtail the ownership of firearms, if anything firearm ownership is growing. Look at the record sells of firearms since November 2008.
I get out of pocket for a couple of weeks and look what happens.
First let me state, I am not for the banning of any firearm.
Second, let me state, we as firearms owners and users are fighting a losing battle with the media in the area of assault weapons and the reason is our fault. The MSM will be the first to call for the ouster of someone who they feel has lied to them, but we as gun owners allow them to lie about us every day with nary a bleat, much like a lamb led to slaughter.
The MSM had redefined the word "Assault weapon" and most firearms owners hang their heads in shame and sometimes say under their breath, "it's not an Assault weapon."
Every time a news person calls any weapon an Assault weapon we need to be on their case and call their boss, (the advertising sponsor) and call for that person's ouster for giving false information or you will take that into consideration the next time you need their product. Are you as vocal to the MSM when they tell open lies, either through ignorance or by design about Assault style weapons as you are to gig Kody for giving an opinion that you feel uncomfortable with and can gig him with anonymity .It's easy to gig Kody for speaking his mind. He is one of us. and you can say "No" to Good comment and no one will know. If you are not screaming at the top of your lungs every time the MSM lies about it, you are helping them. It is easy to be quietly passive aggressive like that. When are you going to stand up and say what needs to be said.
That being said, it doesn't necessarily mean that flashing more guns will help our cause. We need to show others,(Non gun people) that we as gun owners are responsible citizens and not the people painted as bad people by the media.
I have seen way too many people who think they are just having fun tear things up by shooting at "Stuff" That just make gun owners look bad. Do you decry their actions?
Are you loud and vocal? If not, you are part of the problem.
A lot of people say the "I will give up my hands..." but when push comes to shove they will gladly turn on a comrade who tries to give them something to think about, but remain oblivious to the point he was trying to make. There is a bigger battle her folks, and we have infighting that will destroy not just the sport we love but the heritage we all have as Americans and most importantly the unity we should have. We need to be unified and allow people to speak their piece.
Remember who the enemy is. They are counting on us to destroy ourselves by being divided. If they win, gunowners have only themselves to blame.
Several good points are made here, most anti gunners are to lazy to read a two paragraph article and want others to make decisions for them. I personally believe that we need to battle the issue with the same tactics and start using terms like sporting arms, hunting riffle, bird gun, etc. If saying it enough makes it true to the opposition then lets do it. When articles are written or news stories aired lets write in and give rebuttals with corrected terminology and sway the public back before it is to late. To also back up our position all firearms owners should join a sporting or hunting club and participate in shooting sports even if just to set the positive example. I also encourage all gun owners to take their friends and neighbors out shooting, most will be hooked and that will only help support and bolster the intent of the second amendment.
Remember:
" those who beat there guns into plow shears will plow for those who don't"
Thomas Jefferson
Good points made.We as gun owners need to be more verbal,we need to get the facts into the main stream media before it's to late.What people read and hear from the media misinterpret as the truth,how many peoples lifes have been ruined by false statements given by the media.Such as the present day assault weapons,we all know the difference but most people label all guns in this catagorie.And that's the problem,once the media labels an item good or bad it catches on threw out the country.Even when I was in the Marine Corp we didn't call are fully auto M-16 an assault rifle,it was simply a rifle.But my point is if walks like a duck,quacks like a duck and the media calls it a pig what do you think the general populace are going to believe.
Later,
BRBB
Welcome back Bo, personally I don't think just because some will take issue with one of your own on strategy that makes us divided. That assertion is a bit silly we all have different opinions, which is fine and healthy.
As far as your point on MSM- we have a 1500 member response tree set up here so when those ridiculous stories come out we began the calling to alert each other-in turn we all began calling radio television news shows, writing letters to the editors and hitting the comments sections on their online papers engaging the antis directly. In addition many us me included offer to go on air with the facts. The media is hungry for content and readily put us on. Even public radio!
We don’t have concealed carry here but we do have open carry. Many gun owners have started carrying open when and where practical. OC picnics were organized and well attended in public parks.
Shazam! Because we are not slinking around trying not to offend the debate is turning to; gee maybe we should allow CC so we all don’t have to look at these guns. I agree with them CC what a great idea wish I would have thought of it!
OK is this an example of screaming from the roof tops? Or do you think this is just “flashing more guns”?
The other point regarding going after sponsors and advertisers in the various media, this is generally a bad idea. They in most cases did not know a particular story was coming as their ad time is purchased months in advance. No sense making an enemy of a potential friend. Rather they should be approached for donations to help our cause.
Regarding the non existent “assault rifle” -Remington has a line of rifles based on the best parts of our military’s rifle. Looks to me like an incredibly practical line of hunting guns. No one on our side should try and talk us out of using them in the field or worse give the other side a reason to oppose their use.
I think it would be nice if more users of this site would rate what they are reading. I for one; like the feedback it indicates that someone cares a wit about my writings & ramblings. Even if the ratings are red that’s ok I am man enough to take it.
The bottom line - LIBS ARE the COWARDS when confronted with facts coming from a calm and friendly fellow they run for the tall grass every time.
Bo and everyone keep on fighting we are winning.
Later,
Charlie
Churchill once said there are liars, damn liars and statisticians. More guns being purchased does not necessarily mean more people are buying guns. Meaning the percentage of the population buying firearms could be in decline regardless of the increase in sales. That statistic is more relevant to this forum. If the type of firearms being sold was more specific that would also be pertinent to this discussion. Are the sales driven driven by those pursuing sporting interest or for protection? I contend that the only true bastion defending the interests of firearms owners in USA and Canada is within the sporting population. Millions of ladies toting handguns in their purses and white collars executives who only own the gun in the glove box will barely voice a whisper in defense of the right to bear arms. The people who hunt and seek out wild places, who shoot to hone their skills with targets and clay pigeons, who carry dear memories of friends, family and adventures in which firearms played a role --- these are the people most likely to save a threatened sport. They have good reasons, a rich heritage and powerful motivation to preserve what they believe to be important. I have stated before in this forum we are best served by always putting our best foot forward as responsible gun owners and hunters.
In Canada gun sales increased dramatically when people had plenty of disposable income and this increase was largely sponsored by wives who wished to join their husbands and grown sons and daughter wishing to so the same with Dad and Grandpa. They often had experience with older firearms within the family and were ready to get their own. That is a good thing thing because it is sustainable. One contributor points out how bad we have it in Canada as we favor 'appeasement' and are suffering the consequences... oddly enough gun sales have continued to rise since the new gun registration commenced.. predictably, the bureaucracy in charge of the registration as failed miserably, is a fiscal fiasco and a source of embarrassment to the federal government who will cut their losses at the first politically sound opportunity. Perfect!
One contributor to this forum took exception to my comments and harkened way back to the 'founding fathers'. I would love to hear the founding fathers commentary on today's world. Fair to say, they would experience some cultural shock getting accustomed to their new country. What they would say? Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant man by any standards and in any age - my God, the man sat down and wrote the Declaration of Independence. Would he have high praise or only criticism for the new America, its neighbors the world beyond... I do not know. I do know that agree or disagree he would not discount any sincere voice of reason in our time or his own. Good advice for those participating in this forum. It is time to speak to that neighbor who disagrees with you, not a time to draw lines in the sand. I happen to be one of those neighbors.
Kody, well spoken.
Doug offers one of the most cogent arguments one can make regarding defense and support of modern semi-automatic rifles as sporting arms. Remington has taken up the ball in offering versions of formerly military only firearms as sporting arms for hunting and shooting. Those of us who grew up with bolt actions and more "traditional" semi-autos have a difficult time accepting that these rifles, in appropriate calibers like 308 and 260, or 223, can be useful, effective and enjoyable hunting and shooting guns. Not so with the younger generations who, as we all know, are the future of our sports, whether it be shooting or hunting. Rather than arguing that it's futile to make an argument in favor of these modern rifles, and instead offering that same old tired, and still, by the way, largely ineffective argument that it doesn't matter what a gun looks like,"It's my right!"(which we all firmly believe), Doug offers a fresh and reasonable argument. I agree and have been using the same approach in my own consulting calls with media and investment types for the past year. It does, in fact, hold water and reasonable people seem inclined to at least accept it, if not agree with it 100%. It goes a lot further and presents logic beyond it's simply "my right." It IS our right, make no mistake that I believe otherwise, but there are still those participant and non-particpants alike out there who are OK with bolt actions and traditional looking semi-autos while being opposed to military style guns. Casting modern rifles as just that, modern, is not caving, it's not making excuses, it's educating and offering a reasoned argument in support of these firearms as hunting and shooting tools. Blind, stubborn insistence won't go very far with otherwise reasonable people. It never has and likely never will. We've all experienced that. As always, a calm, rationale defense and offense will gain us more ground. The appearance of simple stubborness, shouting, ranting and waving of flags won't get us any further than we've already gotten. It works great for fund raising and membership drives, but it doesn't convince or moderate any of the borderline anti's or pro's. Rational reason and logic has a much better chance of winning over the fence sitters and those in our own ranks who dislike modern guns. Discussion like Doug's article is sound and has proven to be effective for me.
Post a Comment (200 characters or less)
Good article.
What we need is a President who will build a private outdoor shooting range on Pennsylvania Avenue. Wouldn't that be something. Hmmm, is there an indoor handgun range in the White House for the Secret Service? Imagine someone toting a new design rifle to the White House today, "I'd like to show this the President ...."
Regarding introduction on new types of firearms to the public ... Hunters and shooters tend to be a very traditional and conservative bunch. I imagine that ex-military folks have always been the biggest proponent of the firearms they used in the service, and on the leading edge of their use for hunting and shooting sports. Gives us more choices. That is good.
As for anti-gun groups, they, like PETA and HSUS, have no facts to go on, just emotion. Unfortunately, emotion is powerful enough for the uninformed to become their truth.
Several good points are made here, most anti gunners are to lazy to read a two paragraph article and want others to make decisions for them. I personally believe that we need to battle the issue with the same tactics and start using terms like sporting arms, hunting riffle, bird gun, etc. If saying it enough makes it true to the opposition then lets do it. When articles are written or news stories aired lets write in and give rebuttals with corrected terminology and sway the public back before it is to late. To also back up our position all firearms owners should join a sporting or hunting club and participate in shooting sports even if just to set the positive example. I also encourage all gun owners to take their friends and neighbors out shooting, most will be hooked and that will only help support and bolster the intent of the second amendment.
Remember:
" those who beat there guns into plow shears will plow for those who don't"
Thomas Jefferson
Well written article with valid perception.
In regards to the comment by Kody: "Taking an assault type firearm into the field is like putting gasoline on a fire." On the contrary. The 'assault rifle' used in hunting doesn't look like its military counterpart; i.e.. camo finish, no carry handle (flat top for optics), hunting calibers, a five round or less magazine. As far as 'pissing in the wind' it can be done. The general population is not growing to curtail the ownership of firearms, if anything firearm ownership is growing. Look at the record sells of firearms since November 2008.
I get out of pocket for a couple of weeks and look what happens.
First let me state, I am not for the banning of any firearm.
Second, let me state, we as firearms owners and users are fighting a losing battle with the media in the area of assault weapons and the reason is our fault. The MSM will be the first to call for the ouster of someone who they feel has lied to them, but we as gun owners allow them to lie about us every day with nary a bleat, much like a lamb led to slaughter.
The MSM had redefined the word "Assault weapon" and most firearms owners hang their heads in shame and sometimes say under their breath, "it's not an Assault weapon."
Every time a news person calls any weapon an Assault weapon we need to be on their case and call their boss, (the advertising sponsor) and call for that person's ouster for giving false information or you will take that into consideration the next time you need their product. Are you as vocal to the MSM when they tell open lies, either through ignorance or by design about Assault style weapons as you are to gig Kody for giving an opinion that you feel uncomfortable with and can gig him with anonymity .It's easy to gig Kody for speaking his mind. He is one of us. and you can say "No" to Good comment and no one will know. If you are not screaming at the top of your lungs every time the MSM lies about it, you are helping them. It is easy to be quietly passive aggressive like that. When are you going to stand up and say what needs to be said.
That being said, it doesn't necessarily mean that flashing more guns will help our cause. We need to show others,(Non gun people) that we as gun owners are responsible citizens and not the people painted as bad people by the media.
I have seen way too many people who think they are just having fun tear things up by shooting at "Stuff" That just make gun owners look bad. Do you decry their actions?
Are you loud and vocal? If not, you are part of the problem.
A lot of people say the "I will give up my hands..." but when push comes to shove they will gladly turn on a comrade who tries to give them something to think about, but remain oblivious to the point he was trying to make. There is a bigger battle her folks, and we have infighting that will destroy not just the sport we love but the heritage we all have as Americans and most importantly the unity we should have. We need to be unified and allow people to speak their piece.
Remember who the enemy is. They are counting on us to destroy ourselves by being divided. If they win, gunowners have only themselves to blame.
Good points made.We as gun owners need to be more verbal,we need to get the facts into the main stream media before it's to late.What people read and hear from the media misinterpret as the truth,how many peoples lifes have been ruined by false statements given by the media.Such as the present day assault weapons,we all know the difference but most people label all guns in this catagorie.And that's the problem,once the media labels an item good or bad it catches on threw out the country.Even when I was in the Marine Corp we didn't call are fully auto M-16 an assault rifle,it was simply a rifle.But my point is if walks like a duck,quacks like a duck and the media calls it a pig what do you think the general populace are going to believe.
Later,
BRBB
Mike,
There are stories of Reagan visiting the secret service range and borrowing the agent's pistols to shoot snakes in his ranch pond.
If Palin were to run and win maybe her whole family would be out back the White House testing guns....turn the bowling alley into a rifle range, add some mounts to inside decor?
Later,
Charlie
Firedog11 you make a good point to Kody. If his point were valid then we all need to use the "assualt" rifles moe in the field if for no other reason than to get folks use to seeing them.
All we have to do is look the gun owners situation in Canada to see what soft appeasement will do to your rights.
"A right not excercised is a right lost."
Welcome back Bo, personally I don't think just because some will take issue with one of your own on strategy that makes us divided. That assertion is a bit silly we all have different opinions, which is fine and healthy.
As far as your point on MSM- we have a 1500 member response tree set up here so when those ridiculous stories come out we began the calling to alert each other-in turn we all began calling radio television news shows, writing letters to the editors and hitting the comments sections on their online papers engaging the antis directly. In addition many us me included offer to go on air with the facts. The media is hungry for content and readily put us on. Even public radio!
We don’t have concealed carry here but we do have open carry. Many gun owners have started carrying open when and where practical. OC picnics were organized and well attended in public parks.
Shazam! Because we are not slinking around trying not to offend the debate is turning to; gee maybe we should allow CC so we all don’t have to look at these guns. I agree with them CC what a great idea wish I would have thought of it!
OK is this an example of screaming from the roof tops? Or do you think this is just “flashing more guns”?
The other point regarding going after sponsors and advertisers in the various media, this is generally a bad idea. They in most cases did not know a particular story was coming as their ad time is purchased months in advance. No sense making an enemy of a potential friend. Rather they should be approached for donations to help our cause.
Regarding the non existent “assault rifle” -Remington has a line of rifles based on the best parts of our military’s rifle. Looks to me like an incredibly practical line of hunting guns. No one on our side should try and talk us out of using them in the field or worse give the other side a reason to oppose their use.
I think it would be nice if more users of this site would rate what they are reading. I for one; like the feedback it indicates that someone cares a wit about my writings & ramblings. Even if the ratings are red that’s ok I am man enough to take it.
The bottom line - LIBS ARE the COWARDS when confronted with facts coming from a calm and friendly fellow they run for the tall grass every time.
Bo and everyone keep on fighting we are winning.
Later,
Charlie
Churchill once said there are liars, damn liars and statisticians. More guns being purchased does not necessarily mean more people are buying guns. Meaning the percentage of the population buying firearms could be in decline regardless of the increase in sales. That statistic is more relevant to this forum. If the type of firearms being sold was more specific that would also be pertinent to this discussion. Are the sales driven driven by those pursuing sporting interest or for protection? I contend that the only true bastion defending the interests of firearms owners in USA and Canada is within the sporting population. Millions of ladies toting handguns in their purses and white collars executives who only own the gun in the glove box will barely voice a whisper in defense of the right to bear arms. The people who hunt and seek out wild places, who shoot to hone their skills with targets and clay pigeons, who carry dear memories of friends, family and adventures in which firearms played a role --- these are the people most likely to save a threatened sport. They have good reasons, a rich heritage and powerful motivation to preserve what they believe to be important. I have stated before in this forum we are best served by always putting our best foot forward as responsible gun owners and hunters.
In Canada gun sales increased dramatically when people had plenty of disposable income and this increase was largely sponsored by wives who wished to join their husbands and grown sons and daughter wishing to so the same with Dad and Grandpa. They often had experience with older firearms within the family and were ready to get their own. That is a good thing thing because it is sustainable. One contributor points out how bad we have it in Canada as we favor 'appeasement' and are suffering the consequences... oddly enough gun sales have continued to rise since the new gun registration commenced.. predictably, the bureaucracy in charge of the registration as failed miserably, is a fiscal fiasco and a source of embarrassment to the federal government who will cut their losses at the first politically sound opportunity. Perfect!
One contributor to this forum took exception to my comments and harkened way back to the 'founding fathers'. I would love to hear the founding fathers commentary on today's world. Fair to say, they would experience some cultural shock getting accustomed to their new country. What they would say? Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant man by any standards and in any age - my God, the man sat down and wrote the Declaration of Independence. Would he have high praise or only criticism for the new America, its neighbors the world beyond... I do not know. I do know that agree or disagree he would not discount any sincere voice of reason in our time or his own. Good advice for those participating in this forum. It is time to speak to that neighbor who disagrees with you, not a time to draw lines in the sand. I happen to be one of those neighbors.
So Kody, if my or Doug's remarks defending our rights to use any firearm we want as the founding fathers wanted offends certain people or groups then we should give up our first amendment rights as well as the second so that " we don't piss into the wind". The trouble with giving in or "compromise" is that the other side is never satisfied until they have it all.
Doug offers one of the most cogent arguments one can make regarding defense and support of modern semi-automatic rifles as sporting arms. Remington has taken up the ball in offering versions of formerly military only firearms as sporting arms for hunting and shooting. Those of us who grew up with bolt actions and more "traditional" semi-autos have a difficult time accepting that these rifles, in appropriate calibers like 308 and 260, or 223, can be useful, effective and enjoyable hunting and shooting guns. Not so with the younger generations who, as we all know, are the future of our sports, whether it be shooting or hunting. Rather than arguing that it's futile to make an argument in favor of these modern rifles, and instead offering that same old tired, and still, by the way, largely ineffective argument that it doesn't matter what a gun looks like,"It's my right!"(which we all firmly believe), Doug offers a fresh and reasonable argument. I agree and have been using the same approach in my own consulting calls with media and investment types for the past year. It does, in fact, hold water and reasonable people seem inclined to at least accept it, if not agree with it 100%. It goes a lot further and presents logic beyond it's simply "my right." It IS our right, make no mistake that I believe otherwise, but there are still those participant and non-particpants alike out there who are OK with bolt actions and traditional looking semi-autos while being opposed to military style guns. Casting modern rifles as just that, modern, is not caving, it's not making excuses, it's educating and offering a reasoned argument in support of these firearms as hunting and shooting tools. Blind, stubborn insistence won't go very far with otherwise reasonable people. It never has and likely never will. We've all experienced that. As always, a calm, rationale defense and offense will gain us more ground. The appearance of simple stubborness, shouting, ranting and waving of flags won't get us any further than we've already gotten. It works great for fund raising and membership drives, but it doesn't convince or moderate any of the borderline anti's or pro's. Rational reason and logic has a much better chance of winning over the fence sitters and those in our own ranks who dislike modern guns. Discussion like Doug's article is sound and has proven to be effective for me.
Did'nt they say somting like, "Spencer rifles, load em' on Sunday and shhot all week."
Where's pol's like "Honest Abe" when we need them ?
Kody, well spoken.
Doug Painter talks about misconceptions regarding the labeling of modern sporting arms as 'assault rifles'. He claims that it is unfair to judge a book by its cover and he points to past evolutions of firearms to support his position. I would agree with Doug that this is a case of perception but when the common perception is running contrary to your cause you are in serious jeopardy. Why? Because perception in an information age that looks to provide quick answers doesn't need reason to support any of its answers. The public wants the abridged version of the story and if that can be told with a single image or a comic book news caption so be it. This is more than a matter of perception, it is a matter of timing and of forces that were not a factor previously. America in the 1800's did not have gun control issues let alone a growing discontent amongst the general population bent on curtailing the ownership of firearms and a media anxious to give voice to their concerns. I have said it before in this forum. Taking an assault type firearm into the field is like putting gasoline on a fire. Doug, you have put together a tidy little piece here. I would hope your words are not well received by most of the firearms users because this type of argument is what I would call "pissing into the wind" when it comes to furthering the cause of the average firearm owner.
Post a Comment (200 characters or less)