In The Rifleman, the most hallowed Western TV series in the history of ever, Lucas McCain fires 11 or 12 shots (depending on who you believe) from a loop levered Winchester in the opening credits.
Today's politicians, especially those in NY, Washington, Illinois, and San Francisco, would call Mr. McCain a psychopath, armed with a weapon of mass destruction, designed only to kill, because it fires more than seven or ten rounds before reloading. Never mind that Lucas usually attempted to resolve issues peacefully before resorting to using his trusty carbine. And I never saw it shoot all by itself.
The lesson though is clear: Don't *mess* with Chuck!
12 shots from an 11 round [tubular] magazine? That's because he was truly that good...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
To quote Mark McCain,"Pa! Pa!"
I probably won't be popular with my opinion on this, but I don't have a problem with restricting "assault" type weapons. Maybe it's because I don't think you need an AR-15 to kill a deer. Maybe it's because I don't think we are going to be in a "Doomsday Prepper" situation. I don't expect the government or the UN army to come knocking on my door. Maybe it's because the love of my life was murdered in cold blood with a gun during a senseless armed robbery.
I'm a gun owner and may be jaded in my viewpoint, but there has to be a point where we finally draw the line on what is a hunting/defensive type weapon and what is a military type weapon.
I know it's complicated, but what we need is moderation and common sense. Unfortunately both of those are out of fashion.
Hey RPM,
Not trying to start a war but I have to point out that we don't need to hunt. We do need the ability to defend ourselves from tyranny. That is why the founding fathers, after declaring free speech to be the first ammendment, the next had to be the ability of the people to defend the first ammendment with arms if needed. Shall not be INFRINGED.
That being said we need better care of mental health patients. More restrictions on the crazy would makes more sense.
(steps away from podium)
Whoa! You know, of course, that I can't allow unpopularity in these here parts, right? ;-)
If it were based on my personal preferences alone, I would agree with you about the AR-15. I'm largely a wood and steel kinda guy (also, .223 is a marginal caliber for deer). If you put me in the rat maze with levers for Sharps, Ballards, Rolling Blocks, Martini on one side, and the latest gizmos on the other, I'm always gonna go for the historical stuff.
But, that said, I'd be remiss if I didn't recognize that deer hunting isn't the point. As far as preppers go, I'm a prepper from way back, though of a different sort. It seems to me that some of that[cynicism/paranoia] is an [not wholly unwarranted] outgrowth of the realization that those who've been entrusted to lead/govern have really bent us over.
One would have thought after all the election hoopla about responsibility, then the "fiscal cliff", that Washington would've understood the folks here in the hinterlands are fed up with the BalderdaSh - yet we now learn that the Sandy relief legislation was larded up with pork for areas thousands of miles from the affected area. So, I don't view it as solely the tinfoil hat crowd believing that sometime in the not distant future, there may be an intervention, at which time the 'people' will need their 'Liberty Teeth'.
Pray that it doesn't happen, but prepare in case it does.
Back to the AR-15. If it had been proclaimed today that not another one could be sold or manufactured, it wouldn't affect me a bit. I didn't previously own one (I once slicked up the feed ramp on a friend's), didn't rush to buy one this past month, and don't have plans to in the future, so a return to something like the '94 AWB in and of itself doesn't energize me. However, actually looking at what's proposed through the sober lens, I also recognize it won't really accomplish anything either - and it's at that point that I believe the mischief begins.
My prediction is that after an ineffective AWB is in hand, another gun control, or "crime control" in the current parlance, scheme will be launched - incrementalism, the slippery slope. At some point, the essential liberties intended in 1787 to last the ages, and here I'm not just referring to 2A, will have vanished.
I don't paint all the gun ban advocates as evil. Many, probably most, truly believe they're supporting a worthy/noble cause. Even some of the politicians may believe it's the right thing. But as a student of the law of unintended consequences, I've seen too many times the bastardization of legislation designed for one purpose (or at lease said to have been) that delivers something else completely. To capitulate and lay bare the security of my family or fellow citizens to a paternalistic government, simply because it promises to protect me (Arbeit macht Frei!), viewed through the historical lens, is not prudent.
(continued...)
The point where we draw the line between civilian and military weapons? There really isn't any.
Toward the end of the Civil War, the Henry repeaters would've been thought state-of-the-art, though they fired relatively slow projectiles. The 1886 JMB-designed Winchester has multiple rounds and heavy knock down power. The Mausers, Enfields, Garands - all were once the latest military hardware. Despite much rhetoric to the contrary, the NRA is not trying to allow citizens to own bazookas, rocket launchers, or field artillery pieces; so, in fact, what people can currently own is a good deal less than what's truly military. The stubborn truth remains that whatever gets hit downrange, whether from a .30 cal 150 grain lead bullet out of a Winchester '94, or a 5.56 NATO round from a Rock River Arms AR, doesn't much distinguish. Thus, distinctions based on folding stocks and bayo lugs and pistol grips, to me, seem akin to discussing the number of angels dancing on a pin. (I am often amused by the sheer volume of *stuff* people try to attach on AR platforms.)
Violence is complicated. I think the cold truth is it's been part of our world since Cain and Abel, and will remain. If all the guns could magically disappear, there'd still be knives, baseball bats, Molotov cocktails, clotheslines, bare hands, rocks, cars, dyn-o-mite (1927 Minnesota, and Jimmie Walker), IEDs (Tim McVeigh), and airplanes. The instrumentality doesn't seek out the evil - the evil uses whatever device is available. Going a step further, if every last decent person were armed, there'd still be first strike victims, still 168 dead at the Murrah building, thousands at the WTTs. But, in cases like Columbine, Aurora, Oregon, or Newtown, there could've been a possibility of mitigation.
And I think that between those poles, there should be a place for a respectful dialogue to occur.
You're right that moderation and common sense do seem anachronistic to these times.
Note to the Toddster: You may NOT comment on the length of the preceding response(s).
Apparently, blogger has taken a page from the subject here discussed, and has imposed a 'High Capacity Comments' ban - at [a paltry] 4096 characters.
So, of course, I simply cut and pasted it into another magazine, er, comment box.
Kind of an object lesson, huh?
Hey Dew!
Are you telling me I don't have the right to keep and bear arms in fringe?
We'll see about that!
There is a period after needed.
There should be quotation marks around shall.......
You're right RPM, no longer popular. I wasn't ever anyway, but it SURE wasn't due to my views on the topic at hand. RPM, Donald I will take all the extra .223 ammo you might have lying around to feed down the barrel of my AR-15, which by the way has so much *stuff* attached to the barrel that it takes two people to carry it around and shoot it!
You don't know how it pains me to say that Dew was exactly right and (unlike the host) perfectly brief.
@Todd - Did I not specifically prohibit comments referencing this blog host's loquacious responses? Seems to prove the point about the efficacy of executive orders, I suppose.
As for Dew being right 'bout sumthin' - well, we all know a blind pig can find an acorn every once in a while. I share your aversion to pain, and I am not inconsiderate of my readers, which is why I shan't follow this comment as I did Dew's last comment (re: RKBA sans fringe) with an illustration - so I won't ask you to provide a picture of Dew in his briefs.
A long time ago Cher was my favorite 'Half Breed' Indian singer...although I have reservations about admitting that.
Aww, gee Farrah, I always thought you were the most sexiest girl - loved your poster in the '70s...
Post a Comment