Steve Earle (4-11-18) 546 - 2nd Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting or recreation

To The Daily Sun,

Like dogs with a bone, the left anti-gun gang continues to liberally disperse misinformation on guns, gun ownership and gun violence. In the Tuesday edition Mr. Elliot Finn has one of those letters with just enough truth sprinkled in to make it seem plausible. He even ends with a quote from a respected Danish philosopher. More on that later.

Mr. Finn writes as though he has no knowledge of the firearms to which he references, the Remington 740 and AR-15 style rifles. I'm sure, and would be surprised, if he hadn't googled these before writing but shame on him if he didn't. But for those who do not know, I'll provide a brief description and comparison. The Remington 740 is a large caliber hunting rifle, usually in 30-06 or .308. These cartridges usually fire a 165 grain bullet at a muzzle velocity of around 2,700 feet per second. (Keep those numbers in mind.) It has an internal magazine capacity of four rounds.

The AR-15 style rifles are a light hunting/defensive rifle which predominantly is .223 caliber (other manufactures make similar style rifles in other calibers). But sticking to the usual most common, the .223 fires a bullet of just 55 grains at a muzzle velocity of 3,300 feet per second. Yes, dull boring numbers, but it points out that the Remington is a far more powerful weapon with much great range. But so what, as this is all irrelevant because the Second Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting, competition target shooting or any associated activities.

This brings me back to that Danish philosopher who Mr. Finn quoted as saying there are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true (that the Second Amendment is about hunting) the other is to refuse to believe what is true (that the Second was created to oppose powerful government tyranny). Therein is the answer to why detachable box magazines with 20-, 30-, or 40-round capacity are desired by private citizens. They are an insurance policy given us by our founding fathers so that no central government can restrict our free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, all of which the current progressive movement leaders are already attempting to infringe on right now. So don't think for a moment that a totalitarian government can never happen here, the seeds are already planted by the politically correct left. Watch what you wish for.

One other puzzling letter I noted was from Carol Zink, whose research was very accurate and correct but then the conclusions she drew from that research are inexplicable. Explaining the founders created the Second to defend against government tyranny she then decided they did not intend the nation to be "armed to the teeth." Well, yes they did, Carol! That was the whole point of the Second. Citizens have to be able to be a serious deterrent to any government designs to limit the people's rights. I've heard it said, and I agree: When a government learns it does not need to fear its people, the people will learn to fear its government.

One other little note. Accidental home deaths, top five causes:1) falls, 2) poisoning, 3) fire/burns, 4) choking, 5) drowning. Then somewhere down the list would be gun shots. Just putting things into context for readers.

Steve Earle

Gilford