Just what we need...another Zumbo.

[Bailey Guns]

This article (cut/pasted below) begs several questions...here's a few:

• Why profess to be a supporter of 2nd Amendment rights if you obviously don't have a clue what it really means (the old "it's not suitable for hunting" argument)?
• Why compare American gun owners with terrorists?
• How can one possibly argue that manufacturers are making a "big mistake" by building AR-style rifles? Haven't they pretty much been selling as many as they can build this past year? Isn't that what they're in business for? He even goes on to say it's the all time best-selling rifle.
• The AR-15 has similar features to an AK-47. Yeah...so does his Browning semi-auto "sporting" rifle. What's the point?
• Who cares what the press "thinks"? They've never been too concerned with the facts when it comes to guns anyway.
• Didn't the Mauser 98 pretty much define the modern bolt-action rifle? Wasn't the Mauser 98 intially designed to "kill men"?
• Does Darnell know the difference between an AR and an AK? Doesn't sound like it.
• Don't we have a difficult time defending our rights as it is without some self-professed "strong Second Amendment rights person" muddying the waters and providing ammo to the anti-gunners?

Guys like Darnell really piss me off. I respect his right to say his piece...now it's my turn to say mine.

Darnell is ill-informed and is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Guys like him make the job of real 2nd Amendment supporters even more difficult.

I'm certainly not going to support anything this guy is associated with until he changes his tune.

http://www.sanmarcosrecord.com/sport...316115726.html
(Note: The link is dead as the paper has removed the article from their online edition...just left it to attribute it to the source.)

Production of the AR-15 sporting rifles a big mistake
By Jim Darnell
Daily Record Columnist

Choose your battles carefully.

That’s good advice to parents with teenagers. It’s good advice for politicians. Some issues are too emotionally charged and not worth the fight. I would give the same advice to the American gun manufacturers and the National Rifle Association.

I’m a strong Second Amendment rights person. I stand against fire arms registration and government control and confiscation of our guns. But I strongly feel that the firearm manufacturers of our country are making a big mistake in producing the AR-15 sporting rifles.

Ever since Colt introduced the first AR-15 into the hunting world more than 30 years ago they have been very popular. It’s now being produced in several heavier calibers by all major gun manufacturers and is the all-time No. 1 selling rifle.

The AR-15 looks very similar to the M16 service rifle first used in combat in Vietnam. It’s similar in looks to the military rifle used by our vets in the first Gulf War. It also has similar features to an AK-47.

Therein lies the problem. These modern sporting rifles are inflammatory in looks — they don’t look like modern hunting rifles. They are military in looks. They look like they were produced to kill men, not deer.

The AK-47 is the most widely distributed assault rifle in the world and almost always associated with wild terrorists. And most Americans can’t tell the difference in the looks of an AK-47 and a modern AR-15 hunting rifle.

Granted, the AR-15 is not an assault weapon.

Unlike the AK-47 it is not fully automatic (pull the trigger and fire the whole clip). It shoots one bullet at a time like my semi-automatic 30-06 that I hunt deer with.

Granted, the new AR-15’s are compact, light, rugged and accurate. They make excellent hunting rifles. The problem is their inflammatory looks.

The press immediately jumped on the letters AR to mean “assault rifle.” That’s not what AR means. AR abbreviates Armalite. But the anti-gun press conveniently overlooks the facts.

The firearms manufacturers defend their production of the AR-15 modern hunting rifles with an argument from history. World War I soldiers used the 1903 Springfield bolt-action rifle in combat. When they returned to America they wanted a hunting rifle in the same 30-06 cartridge with the smooth bolt action cycling that they experienced with the Springfield. Thus, the production of millions of great bolt action sporting rifles like the Model 70 Winchester, the Ruger 77, and the 700 Remington. The bolt action rifle is still the most accurate and popular rifle among the world’s big game hunters.

Then came WW II and the introduction of the first semi-automatic service rifle, the M-1 30-06, popularly known as the Garand (named after the inventor).

When these brave service men returned home a wide range of semi-automatic hunting rifles and shotguns gained widespread popularity among both hunters and target-shooting enthusiasts.

The manufacturers ask, “Shouldn’t Vietnam and Gulf War vets have a hunting rifle like their service rifles?”

I don’t think the argument is valid. After WW II, crazy terrorists weren’t running through the streets firing 1903 bolt action Springfields into the air.

No Arab terrorists were on the daily newscasts blasting people with the semi-automatic Garand after WW II.

It’s the AK-47 and its long history with revolution, riots and terrorism that’s the problem.

The average person in America says why do you need a terrorist’s assault rifle to hunt? Again, the AR-15 is not a terrorist’s weapon. It is not fully automatic. It is not an assault rifle. It just looks like one.

So why endanger our Second Amendment rights by manufacturing and defending a modern hunting rifle that has such an inflammatory design? It plays right into the hands of the anti-gun movement. They love the looks of the AR-15. It’s easy to enrage the average American against such an “assault rifle.”

Let’s get wise. We have a difficult enough task defending our right to own firearms without this foolish battle.


Jim Darnell is an ordained minister and host/producer of the syndicated television show “God’s Great Outdoors.” His column appears every Thursday in the Daily Record.

[Irving]

How exactly does a firearm's looks, determine what it was meant to kill? All firearms were intended to fire bullets, period. Bullets of nearly ANY type (including air rifle pellets) will kill men. That is a simple fact of life that has no place in a topic such as this.


I strongly suspect that the reason there weren't terrorists running around firing Garands into the air, is because either 1) "Terrorists" like we know today, did not exist then. or 2) That did exist, but do the lack of global reporting, most people didn't know about it.

I agree with you Bailey, dumb article.

[Batteriesnare]

Wasn't the Second Amendment designed to allow citizens to bear arms in case they needed to kill men?

I've never been hunting with the militia, thats for sure!

[MichiganMilitia]

The whole premise of the article is that AR-15s "look" scary.

I can't think of a stronger argument.

-MM

[Irving]

How come there isn't any legislation to ban Halloween costumes?

[Batteriesnare]

The whole premise of the article is that AR-15s "look" scary.

Man, I think they are gorgeous. I'm surprised no one is rushing to ban the AK, thats the scarier looking one to me.... and the A actually stands for automatic.

[GreenScoutII]

As far as I know, the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about hunting.

It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. It does not specify which arms.

In the 1770's, the British Brown Bess musket was the Kalishnikov of it's day. It was the assault rifle.

One must assume that our founding fathers knew and understood this when they spelled out the second amendment. IMO, they intended for the average citizen to be as well armed, with the same arms, as the average soldier.

Who cares what a weapon looks like? This sounds like come kind of appeasement or concession to the gun grabbers to me. I say, buy as many "assault weapons as you can. Tens of millions of gun owners armed with hundreds of millions of assault rifles sends a powerful message.

[Irving]

From the article:

I don’t think the argument is valid. After WW II, crazy terrorists weren’t running through the streets firing 1903 bolt action Springfields into the air.

No Arab terrorists were on the daily newscasts blasting people with the semi-automatic Garand after WW II.

It’s the AK-47 and its long history with revolution, riots and terrorism that’s the problem.

I just so happened to be reading the Wikipedia page about World War I for the past few days and came across this in the section about India's involvement. Seems some terrorism and guerrilla warfare was mentioned. Weird, maybe that stuff didn't wait to be invented until the AK-47 was invented.

From Wiki:

Indian independence movement

Further information: Third Anglo-Afghan War and Hindu-German Conspiracy
Bengal and Punjab remained hotbeds of anti-colonial activities. Terrorism in Bengal, increasingly closely linked with the unrest in Punjab, was significant enough to nearly paralyse the regional administration. Also from the beginning of the war, expatriate Indian population, notably in Germany, United States and Canada, headed by the Indian Independence Committee and the Ghadar Party respectively, attempted to trigger insurrections in India on the lines of the 1857 uprising with Irish Republican, German and Turkish help in a great conspiracy that has since become known as the Hindu German conspiracy. The conspiracy also made attempts to rally the Amir of Afghanistan against British India, starting a political process in that country that culminated three years later in the assassination of Amir Habibullah and precipitation of the Third Anglo-Afghan war. A number of failed attempts at mutiny were made in India, of which the February mutiny plan and the Singapore mutiny remain most notable. This movement was suppressed by means of a vast international counter intelligence operation and draconian political acts (including the Defence of India act 1915) that lasted nearly ten years.[66][67][68]
The Ghadarites also attempted to organise incursions from the western border of India, recruiting Indian prisoners of war from Turkey, Germany, Mesopotamia. Ghadarite rebels, led by Sufi Amba Prasad, fought along with Turkish forces in Iran and in Turkey. Plans were made in Constantinopole to organise a campaign from Persia, through Baluchistan, to Punjab. These forces were involved skirmishes that captured the frontier city of Karman, taking into custody the British consul. Percy Sykes's campaign in Persia was directed mostly against these composite forces. It was at this time that the Aga Khan and his brother were recruited into the British War effort. However, the Aga Khan's brother was captured and shot dead by the rebels, who also successfully harassed British Forces in Sistan in Afghanistan, confining British forces to Karamshir in Baluchistan, later moving towards Karachi. They were able to take control of the coastal towns of Gawador and Dawar. The Baluchi chief of Bampur, having declared his independence from the British rule, also joined the Ghadarite forces. It was not before the war in Europe turned for the worse for Turkey and Baghdad was captured by the British forces that the Ghadarite forces, their supply lines starved, were finally dislodged. They retreated to regroup at Shiraz, where they were finally defeated after a siege. Amba Prasad Sufi was killed in this battle. The Ghadarites carried on guerilla warfare along with the Iranian partisans till 191.[69][70][71][72]
Although the conflict in India was not explicitly a part of the First World War, it was part of the wider strategic context. The British attempt to subjugate the rebelling tribal leaders drew away much needed troops from other theatres, in particular, of course, the Western Front, where the real decisive victory would be made.
The reason some Indian and Afghani tribes rose up simply came down to years of discontent which erupted, probably not coincidentally, during the First World War. It is likely that the tribal leaders were aware that Britain would not be able to field the required men, in terms of either number or quality, but underestimated the strategic importance of India to the British. Despite being far from the epicentre of the conflict, India provided a bounty of men for the fronts. Its produce was also needed for the British war effort and many trade routes running to other profitable areas of the Empire ran through India. Therefore, although the British were not able to send the men that they wanted, they were able to send enough to mount a gradual but effective counter-guerilla war against the tribesmen. The fighting continued into 1919 and in some areas lasted even longer.

Looks like there was enough of what the author was talking about to at least make it into the history books. Wonder what kind of guns they were using.

[theGinsue]

All good arguments everyone. Basically, what it comes down to is you are either a supporter of the Second Amendment and all it stands for, or you aren't. There can be NO middle ground. I find it especially unforgivable for someone who has access to a large mass of people and uses their "respected" position to claim to be a 2A supporter and, in the same breath, describe why certain firearms should be restricted. I put these people up there with the crazies and those who are dangerously careless with firearms as teh greatest threats to maintaining our 2A freedom.

I work with a retired Marine who doesn't "see the need to have an AR-15". He owns several other guns, including an M1 Carbine, but somehow an AR is inappropriate?! I don't get the logic. I told him that if he doesn't think that he should have an AR then don't get one, but don't support the position of those who want to limit my right to have one.

During the Clinton Gun Ban, simple aesthetic/cosmetic changes that do not affect the function of the firearm would get a gun banned or labeled an "assault rifle". I found it interesting that people believe that adding a bayonet lug or a flash suppressor to a rifle could make it more dangerous than it was before the change.

I will always maintain the position that a frearm is only a dangerous tool when in the hands of the negligent or those with evil intent. If those with evil intent want to cause harm they will find a way to accomplish their goals - with or without a firearm.

[cebeu]

I've noted various links across the web referencing this, the drivel is forever captured. Welcome to infamy Darnell, you deserve it.

BTW - Contact the San Marcos Daily Record, remind them about accountability

Stan Woody: Publisher - swoody@sanmarcosrecord.com
Rowe H. Ray: Managing Editor - rray@sanmarcosrecord.com