« .30 Rem. AR: Magazines and Muzzle Velocity | Main | New From Marlin: .338 Marlin Express »

October 15, 2008

This page has been moved to http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Gun Shots at its new location: www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots.

Are Gun Owners the Second Amendment’s Worst Enemy?

The following is a guest blog by Derek Reeves, who works in a gun shop in Connecticut:

Working within the gun industry I am dismayed by the divisional attitudes among people who own firearms for whatever purpose that suits them. I have repeatedly heard gun owners disparage other aspects of gun possession. Some hunters feel that people should not own military style weapons, some target shooters feel that civilians should not have .50 BMG rifles, some who own guns for self defense feel that people should not hunt. So when one element comes under fire the solidarity needed to defeat it is not there. Whether you agree or disagree with my observation we, as gun owners, need to start realizing the stark, naked truth. We are all in the same boat and that boat is taking on water.

We are a diverse group and because of that we are divided and that hurts us when anti-gun regulations come under consideration. When the threat of legislation banning .50 BMG weapons was introduced a few people shrugged their shoulders and said, ‘Well I don’t have a .50,’ and that attitude is giving the forces allied against our constitutional right the foothold they need to further their agenda. Divide and conquer is their strategy and it’s working. The Assault Weapons Ban is up for consideration again in congress and all gun owners should be concerned as this “new and improved” version has no sunset and this added provision:

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'

Yes. Any semi-automatic weapon used by military or federal law enforcement cannot be owned by civilians and the Attorney General, at any time, can decide that a weapon (and any copies), are not suitable for “sporting purposes” and ban it. Do I have to mention the long list of weapons currently in use by our Government, Military and Federal Law Enforcement? Hunters you are included in this list. Get the wrong Attorney General and he or she can use this provision to expand the ban list to include any weapon.

We are heading into, perhaps, the darkest times for gun ownership and our liberties. We have the potential for the most anti-gun, anti-liberty, socialistic President in the history of our country. Running on the platform of “Change, We can believe in” with dashes of hope his Second Amendment stance is, at best, horrendous. Barrack Obama, claims he supports gun ownership while his own actions contradict his words. He feels that no one, other than law enforcement, should have concealed carry permits, that no civilian should have a semi-automatic weapon of any kind, and has said he will reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban and that the Washington D.C. gun ban is proper and should stand.

OK, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right and the D.C. gun ban is unconstitutional. Now here’s the flip side. That ruling barely passed 5-4 and the backlash from anti-gun politicians has started. California is pushing through four new pieces of anti-gun legislation. The set of rules that the District of Columbia is implementing, concerning registration of firearms, are completely contradictory to the court’s ruling. Massachusetts is considering legislation to increase all firearms licensing fees by two hundred percent. If Barrack Obama is elected President he will have the opportunity to replace two to three Supreme Court members. What kind of people do you think he will pick?

Now is the time for all of us, gun owners and constitutionally minded individuals, to come together under one banner. That banner can be the NRA but most importantly it has to be heard through votes. There are an estimated two to three hundred million registered firearms in the hands of law abiding Americans--that is a strong and very loud voice at the polls. Or we can stay divided, kick back and hope for change or is it change for hope?

— Derek A. Reeves



Without wanting to get into a political debate, way to prove your own point. Gun owners do need to demonstrate solidarity, but it becomes hard to stand together when Republican gun owners, who are the vast majority, are constantly taking pot shots at Democrats.

"We have the potential for the most anti-gun, anti-liberty, socialistic President in the history of our country." Why is that comment necessary?

Yes, yes, I know that is what you believe. And I know you assume that every gun owner is a diehard Republican. But I know plenty of liberal people who are also gun owners. And the reason they are not more active is that they have no desire to get involved in a movement that is consistently contemptuous of them.


*"We have the potential for the most anti-gun, anti-liberty, socialistic President in the history of our country." Why is that comment necessary?*

Because it is true.

The truth should not be hurtful to anti-liberty, socialistic gun owners. They no doubt revel in the fact that someone who supports their anti-liberty, socialist politics may be running the country soon. They just need to understand that it is likely to come with a heaping dose of anti-gun as well. And they should do something about that.


Thanks, U.J., for proving my point. Please, continue to vilify every liberal gun owner. That will, of course, end well.


Josh Sugarmann's Violence Policy Center published a report calling for the banning of "Intermediate Sniper Rifles", accessories, and ammunition. That included the M24 sniper system which is a modified Remington 700, one of the most popular rifles in the US.

This report was funded by the Joyce Foundation while Barack Obama was on the board.


I know of plenty of gun owners who are far from the conservative mindset.

The real issue is not where the rest of your politics lie, it's where you draw the line.

To many like myself, gun rights is a "deal breaker" , meaning no anti-gun politician will ever get my vote.

So, the question is, will your otherwise liberal politics have you vote for a team of gun grabbers, or the team with the NRA life member on it?

Eddy A.

I agree with many who have commented here. Regardless of what an individual believes in terms of how the constitution should be respected or not (true definition of conservative and liberal) any person who supports the 2nd ammendment cannot believe that Obama will support our gun rights due to his history and also some logic. A liberal constructionist is one who believes it is ok to liberally alter and amend the constitution. Therefore, they are a person who would find it acceptable to go against the 2nd amendment. On that principle alone, a true 2nd amendment supporter should always vote for the conservative/strict constructionist who believes that our constitution is the greatest power in the land and must be abided by without alteration.

...but I guess i'm just clinging to my guns and religion ;-)

"AFRICA JACK" - (pseudonym)


Interesting article, and rest assured not only applicable to the USA. All over, the world is facing such challenges, and it leaves one begging, to think where that leaves us as gun owners.

In Africa we seem to however be escaping the heavy anti-gun lobbyists for the moment. Food crisis; and politics seem to get the better news coverage, especially your news.

We pesonally have a gun collection of more than 150 guns in our collection, so we always try and stay up to date on such news.

Feel free to visit our blog for more news and interesting stories "out of africa".



Consider yourself invited, if you havent hunted Africa yet, man you are loosing out. Visit our blog for much more news.

Regards and may God Bless you.

"Africa Jack"


I try not to vote party lines, I like to choose the best canidate availible, and I do tend to lean towards the democratic side, mainly because of economic policy, in my view, both parties are going to spend way too much money, but at least the democratics try to keep some money coming into the government, but therin lies the issue, do i vote econmonics, or do i vote guns, i still don't know who i should vote for, because i think both will say anything to get elected, and i don't know how much McCain understands the economy, and his running mate doesn't understand anything, but Obama, who I feel has the best economic policy, is, as mentioned above, horrible for my guns. what to do what to do


"Thanks, U.J., for proving my point. Please, continue to vilify every liberal gun owner. That will, of course, end well."

What villification? Liberal gun owners are ... liberal gun owners. They are not libertarian gun owers. They are liberals. That means something.

They are anti-liberty, preferring that liberty be replaced with liberal ideals of behaviour, the most common summation of which is socialism. That is what they do, and they are generally proud that they do it.

They need to realize that one of the anti-liberty, liberal ideals that their fellow travellors share is the anti-gun liberal ideal.

This is not villification.


Scary when someone such as johnny can say that Barack "spread the wealth around" Obama has the best plan for the economy. Since when has "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs" been a sound economic policy?

Eddy A.

@ Johnny
Thank you for posting a very honest opinion. I agree with you that any candidate would say anything to get elected. Most conservatives like myself would agree because we know that McCain was a liberal conservative up until he started this campaign. Now if you have to choose between economic policy and your guns, i say guns. The capitalistic system will eventually fix itself, but once our guns have been taken, they will never be given back (just like our f/a's became 'class 3' weapons in 1986 and have never gone back). I of course would disagree with you on the principles of Obama's economic policy as i believe you should give money to people who know how to use it (rich people and corporations) who will create jobs and more money instead of giving it to the people who refuse to work and want to live for free. And the current situation exists because of the Clinton administration pushing the already money hungry banks into making housing loans to people whoul could not pay them back. But thats just my opinion which i interjected unfairly ;-). What i'm trying to say is you can save your life and your family's lives with a gun, and hungry or not, being alive is better than being dead with a great economy.


Eddy A., I do see where you are coming from, but the question is this, what good are my guns if I can't afford to use them. I grew up in a middle class family, being taught the that money isn't everything, but it is better to be happy and make an honest living. The problem I tend to have with your view is that I don't trust the rich to do what is best, because as most would probably agree money fuels greed, and that leads to coruption. I believe a strong middle class is what fuels industry. Now I am sure people are going to call me a socialist and all this other crap, which is certainly not true, but when the largest population of americans (middle class) is making good money, spending good, that is what drives businesses to expand. As with any program, there are going to be those that abuse it, whether it is lazy people that do not want to work sucking on the government money teat, or rich people corupting everything like the bank system is now. But i also feel some responsiblility in helping those that have not been lucky enough to have been taught a strong work ethic, the right way to raise children, etc, and don't believe, that because of the actions or inactions their parents made, the children should have to suffer too, and if someone makes a million dollars a year, there is really no reason why that person should not share that wealth to make the country better. In my years I have met and worked and for quite a few fairly wealthy individuals, and the majority of them are extremely tight with there money, and most would even border on being shrewd with there money and do anything to make a dollar and keep a dollar, not looking for any reason to support people less fortunate than them. But yet I still love my guns, just some ramblings from my brain..


I own a small business and can tell you if Obama gets elected I will have no choice but to lay off and may go out of business.
We are tax to death now and can not take much more between taxes and law suites.
My customers now are asking us to excell our schedule in case he gets elected.
As for guns he will elect Judges to strip away our rights.



I respect your comments, but you have got to do some homework. Higher taxes results in LESS money for the government. Go do the research. And you need to understand that by voting Democrat, you aren't taking power from corporations and giving it to the middle class, you're empowering the governement. Do you really trust the government? Are they not capable of the same greed you speak of when referring to the rich people?

PA Ray

Let us not forget Democratic VP nominee Senator Biden has voted to ban the ammunition (and parts thereof) we need to use our firearms. Remember, Senator Obama was hand picked by Senator Ted Kennedy and has Senator John ("The Goose Hunter") Kerry as an advisor. This group has an agenda and the dismantling of the Constitution (especially the 2nd Amendment) is high up on that list.

Will a McCain/Palin Administration be able to get proper Justices on the US Supreme Court, and otherwise foil that agenda while fighting an overwhelmingly Democrat controlled Congress? I don't know. I do know there is NO hope if the White House AND the Congress are under Democratic control.


To add to what Dusty said, most DC politicians are rich folks themselves.

To paraphrase a popular TV commercial:

"I'm not an average guy, I just play one in DC."

Derek A. Reeves

LiberalGunRunner, yes there are plenty of Liberal gun owners and I am dumbstruck when you and others place your vote for a person, who has made it clear, he is going to regulate your Second Amendment right the way he feels it work. At the same time he will be fully protected by the same weapons that he says you can't have. Please explain that to me.

Redistribution of Wealth is socialism, hence my description of Obama.



First, it makes me sick to think about how Obama views the RTBA. But I vote for him (and what Democrats I vote for) because of my views on things like FISA, rolling back the Patriot Act, hope that we can get a sensible health policy for this country, support for net neutrality, issues of separation of church and state, and so on, and so on. The last especially.

And if you want to define socialism on that, I hope you apply it to every politician since the 16th amendment was passed. We get taxed. That tax money is given to other people. All politicians do it. Can I declare Republicans failed socialist, since they don't tax enough to cover all the wealth they are redistributing.

You want an explanation, it is that I hate what some liberals say about the 2nd Amendment, but I hate what some conservatives say about everything else.

And here is what dumbfounds me. Gunbanners like to claim that if you're not looking to commit crimes, then various laws won't bother you. This is bull plop, and I'm sure you would agree. But Conservatives go around making the exact same arguments with regards to things like FISA and civil forfeiture law. And you expect me to vote for that?


Please don't take this as an attack, but man, what about fairness?
The Wealthy: How much makes them wealthy? When do you get some of theirs? Maybe they are a target for every fundraiser out there, maybe they fear being "broke", you can't know why they have frugal habits. Maybe being frugal helped them get rich.. Maybe they have given something to you and I already - a job and a chance to profit from what they have. Maybe they earned it, maybe they were born to it, but it is theirs. I think Jay Leno should have 1000 cars if he wants them and can afford them, and he is not responsible to give them to anyone who doesn't own one or can't afford one. And he never dirtied his hands on lead and Oakum, or turned a pipe wrench to earn a penny. The same with Bill Gates money, or your ATV or bass boat or rifle. If someone has it in the heart to contribute to the good of the society they live in to a larger extent than an equal share, they will be rewarded in the intangibles that generousity brings. If you want take from them for your benefit (even in the form of better roads or schools), at least use a knife in an alley and be honest about you're doing! No one should be punished for success and made to pay more than the next person. What in the world has happened to the sense of fairness in our country. And no, I am not wealthy, but I'm sure trying to get there.

I hope you are wealthy one day from your work and character, in both money and intangibles. Maybe you already are. But don't expect to reach into the pockets of the wealthy for more than the same you will give - it's called fairness.

Derek A. Reeves

LiberalGunRunner I hear your comments. The one thing that made this country great is the fact you get to do well or poorly based on your own performance (the harder you work and sacrifice the more you benefit). Now we are slipping into a society where people honestly believe they are entitled, I will be the first to say that is nonsense. The best thing that can be done is pull that old document out of the Library of Congress, dust it off and follow it to the letter, the one that starts "We the People". You let one freedom wane the others will follow.

A conservative I am because I believe in hard work, personal responsibility and the freedom to make good and bad decisions, not dictated to me by others.

Mark Spisak

I'm always amazed by the thinking of some gun owners and the way they justify voting for someone or a group of someones that if unchecked would make firearm ownership illegal in a heartbeat. If no one opposed them why wouldn't they? Past history and statements made should be enough to make the voting decision easy. Unless the guns you actually own don't mean anything and having them outlawed and taken away isn't going to bother you. History has proven eternal vigilance is the cost of freedoms. But I guess by just saying "it won't happen" makes them feel more at ease with their decisions.

Joe G.

What really suprises me is that none of our lawmakers spend time to mandate that those that commit crimes with a weapon rot in prison. Everybody seems so quick to want to ban assault weapons and pull gun owners' permits, but I have yet to see a statistic on how many crimes have been committed by individuals who are lawful gun owners who had the proper background checks. If Obama and other anti-gun people would re-focus their attention in the right spot, they would have a much greater effect without infringing on everyone's Second Amendment rights.


Everyone has good points and arguements, and I think this is the first discussion about guns and politics that has been respectful, kinda nice for a change. As derek does, I also believe in hard work, personal responsibility, and the freedom to make good and bad decisions, As I am sure you all have done too, I work hard every day and take all my responsibilities very serious. Short of winning the lotery, I never will be rich, and I don't necessariy care to be, all I ask for is the ability to make a decent living, have a good family, and have ample opportunities for any children i may have. I would like them t0, just as my parents wanted for me, and their parents wanted for them, to have the same chance to work hard and have the opportunity for a good life. But as part of my responsibilities, as a productive member of society, it is my duty, and the duty of all the other productive memebers of society to help those less fortunate, and maybe people that have experienced some tough times and need to get back on their feet. Whether habitat for humatiy, church's, or governement assistance, it is our duty. I, however don't think people should be allowed to suck on the government teat forever, but only to help them get back even again. I think it is bad when people think they are entitled to assistance, but that doesn't mean we should punish the ones that are properly utilizing the system. Some people are just lazy POS and there is no getting around that. I also believe people have the right to be rich, and for leno to have 1000 cars, thats his peragotive, but I also think with that level of wealth comes responsibility, I am not talking about a socailist society where everyone makes the same money no matter what, I am talking about is them footing there share of the bill. Its oil companies forking over some of there high profits to help build new school, or getting our country out of debt. I mean, if I made 2 million dollars a year, if i have to pay 25% taxes (easy number to work with) is 1.5 million really that much less? is it going to cramp my lifestyle? But if i make 50k a year and i have the same tax rate of 25% that 12,500 in taxes is alot tougher to deal with. thats not what i consider fair. As far as the business side goes, I am no businessman, but if I own construction company, and 5% of the population is making money, but the rest is pinching pennies, how much business is that going to generate for me? how many employees do i need? Now have 90% of the population making more money, having more to spend, now how is my business doing? How many employees do i need? even if i pay higher taxes, work is more plentifull, so i need more people, creating jobs, giving more people income, creating more income for me, leading me to make more money. that is how it seems to work in my brain, lets keep the good discussion going!


I also fully agree with joe about the refocus of attention. good point


Be careful, you're describing "Supply-side Economics"! And it works.

Still, I have a problem with "mandating" that anyone be "charitable" by taxing them at a higher rate for making more. Why should they pay any more for I-95 repairs than you do? It's the "moral" thing to do. If they want to see to those needs at a higher level, then they can. Perhaps they should feel the need to do so. IT's a good thing, this morality. But I oppose this "legislation of morality" via taxation more than limiting rap lyrics or blue movies or wardrobe malfunctions.

And there is no problem with a helping hand - a hand up so to speak from our government. Many things we do are aimed at temporary assistance, from unemployment compensation to programs for children to help for those with a medical crisis. They aren't perfect, but we try. And that's good.

But the present mentality of progressive taxes being patriotic is absurd. Mercy and compassion for those who are unable to care for themselves is a far cry from the culture that draws the lifeblood from our economy in "transfer payments" these days. I watch people I know waste assistance from these programs, then cry for more. It's a dependance as much as cocaine or heroin for them. We need to get our thinking right. We need to be reasonable with ourselves as well as others. That's Change we Need, not what the candidates are selling.