More Anti-Gun Big Media Stuff

Here's an interesting piece written by Frank Abderholden of the Lake County News Sun. Of course, being big media from the Chicago area, it's a one-way piece, no comment section or way to directly respond. Thankfully, we have The Gun Blogs!

It starts out as a recounting of the Zumbo Affair then veers off into uncharted territory. Check this out:

I remember one time hunting a piece of land near Richmond and some young guys from Chicago came out as my brothers and I were leaving. One of them had an unusual gun for hunting, a sawed off shotgun. We thought that was stupid, but the Second Amendment doesn't make any distinctions, right?

Well, Frank, you're right. The Second Amendment doesn't say "the right to keep and bear arms other than sawed-off shotguns". However, the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 bans possession of this weapon. While there is a legal way to possess one, the process is costly and undertaken be very few people, especially for sawed-off shotguns.

The AR rifles are accurate weapons and could easily be used for hunting big game like deer, but I'm sure gun manufacturers would suggest a better weapon.

First off, "AR Rifles" really mean only those in the style of Colt's AR-15. It is not a generic term for all rifles that look cool (aka "assault rifles")

Secondly, the standard AR is chambered in .223 caliber, which many states say is too small for "big game" like deer.

Thirdly, gun manufacturers don't suggest anything. They make them, we buy them and use them as we see fit. The vast majority of us use them in a legal, non-violent way. Yes, I said non-violent. Guns are not designed to kill; they are designed to hurl a projectile at speed. Period. Reading anything else into the design is assigning sentience to an inanimate object, which is usually not considered healthy.

I know someone who shot an automatic (illegal) AK-47 who said it was really cool. He's not and never was in the military.

Bzzzt! Wrong answer, Frank! Like the sawed-off shotgun you mentioned earlier, a fully automatic rifle is legal to possess, providing the correct paperwork is done and taxes are paid. And, they most definitely are fun.

Another friend recently told me of how his daughter, never having shot a gun before, was taken to the range by her boyfriend and "had a blast" shooting different handguns, and, I think, rifles at targets. No blood ... big fun.

No blood ... big fun is right! Non-violent, too.

But then I go back around to deceased Chicago columnist Mike Royko's column where he suggested that the best in home security for grandma would be hand grenades. If grandma heard someone in the basement, why take the chance of confronting the intruder with a shotgun, or any type of gun.

Sounds like you're reporting hyperbole as fact. Shame!

So many questions in this controversy, and I'm not finding a bunch of immediate answers.

That's why I'm here, bro.

Except, "Leave my gun alone: is different than "Leave my RPG" (Rocket Propelled Grenade) alone.

It is, that's just common sense, RPG's are kinda illegal for us average folks to own. Fun to shoot, though. Except the bigger ones, like the AT-4. Not much fun. The concussion feels similar to getting hit in the face with a softball.

There has to be a line somewhere. Just where does it start?

The line has already been drawn. It's been there for decades. It's just that too many people are trying to push that line back to the point where average citizens won't be able to "keep and bear arms". They do it by using scare quotes, sensationalizing every gun crime they can, and misrepresenting the facts.

As to the basic premise of your piece, I don't think the "rift" (like the scare quotes?) between hunters and shooters is growing, I think it's shrinking at a drastic rate now that we "shooters" can no longer be considered the red-headed stepchildren of the shooting world.

.