Posted on 12/29/2001 5:06:33 PM PST by PJeffQ
Self-defense, gun ownership, and homeland security
By RICK DANIEL
Guest Columnist
The current focus on homeland security has a growing number of Americans reevaluating their stance on personal safety and on the Second Amendment. Along with an increased demand for self-defense and firearms training, gun sales have skyrocketed. Individuals who previously scoffed at gun ownership are now finding a readily available firearm to be quite comforting.
Here in South Carolina, firearms and ammunition sales are helping to shore up a slow economy. Licensed firearms dealers are selling guns in record numbers. If not for legal impediments, they could sell even more. Training for concealed weapons permits is also on the rise as new gun owners learn how to best protect themselves and their families. There is a greater acknowledgment of the fact that personal security is fleeting and self-defense is almost a responsibility of good citizenship.
Terrorist attacks and armed robberies can't be averted by the police, who are often miles away when bad things happen. The heroic passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 understood this stark reality. Todd Beamer became one of the first in modern times to take on the awesome responsibility of homeland defense. The actions of Beamer and his fellow passengers saved the lives of thousands.
In South Carolina, more than 40,000 citizens have taken the considerable time and expense to obtain concealed weapons permits. Since these permits became readily available more than five years ago, SLED has reported no serious problems. While it is obvious to most that permit holders are good citizens, the law still places many restrictions on when and where they may carry guns. With so many responsible gun owners trained and available to help, shouldn't we be finding ways to encourage, rather than discourage, their participation in homeland defense?
Lawmakers should move quickly next year to recognize SLED's success with our concealed weapons program by removing many of the restrictions on concealed weapons permit holders; a good example is the prohibition against carrying guns in restrooms at interstate rest stops. This will instantly make our state a much safer place.
Licensed gun dealers also need fewer restrictions. Currently, gun dealers lose many sales because South Carolina limits individuals to the purchase of one handgun a month. While this gun rationing scheme may have once seemed logical, its supposed justification is no longer valid, and it needs to be repealed. Federal law is more than sufficient to deal with such potential problems as gun running. In fact, multiple sales must now be reported to the ATF, nullifying any benefit derived from impeding legal sales.
To assume that no one needs more than one gun is outrageous and shortsighted. The truth is that security-minded citizens often need several guns. Sadly, under current state law they are unable to buy one handgun for personal carry and another for home defense within 30 days. In the current budget crunch, the increased sales tax revenue would surely be welcomed. Also, eliminating the purchase restriction and its attendant paperwork will free up valuable law enforcement resources to deal with genuine crime problems. There is simply no demonstrable reason to maintain an outdated one-handgun-a-month law.
Lawmakers have an opportunity next year to make a lasting contribution to homeland security. Empowering citizens is the surest way to reach this goal while making things safer for everyone. Law-abiding gun owners, licensed firearms dealers and self-defense advocates are ready to help. The Legislature should recognize the potential of such a valuable coalition as it sets about working to strengthen South Carolina's first line of defense.
Mr. Daniel, president of Gun Owners of South Carolina, led the lobbying effort for passage of the state's concealed weapons law.
I have said it before and I'll say it again. Terrorists won't strike where there are tons of cops or soldiers around...not a personal strike where they're shooting the place up and lobbing grenades. But they see our population as "sheeple" soft and wimpy. In about 80% of cases today they'd be correct.
But I maintain that someday soon...one or more of these so called "sleeper cells" is going to activate and go postal in a shopping mall and the cops won't stop them...it'll be some sleepy eyed little family man with a CCW and a cocked and locked .45 that simply shuts them down from within a 21 foot radius.
We are all on the front in this WWIII.
Take him to a range that rents guns and try out as many as he's willing. Stick to .38 Special and above for revolvers and .380 ACP and up for semi-autos. Personally I like 9mm and .45 ACP because I can get inexpensive milsurp ammo.
Best to stick to major manufacturers in my opinion. For the auto-loaders that would be Sig Sauer, Glock, H&K, Ruger, Walther, CZ, and possibly Taurus. In revolovers, I'd go with Ruger and Taurus, or a USED Smith & Wesson. Not giving them any "new" business until they undo the sellout deal they made with the Clinton administration.
Feel free to contact me (patriot_bob@yahoo.com or FReep mail) with any specific questions.
Sounds like a plan!
In revolovers, I'd go with Ruger and Taurus, or a USED Smith & Wesson.
Yep, my .357 mag is an S&W, purchased before they decided to sell out their principles for lawsuit protection that never materialized and became the government stooges that they are today. (Good gun, but I won't buy another one from them today!)
I'd say .357 magnum (shooting .38 Spl's) would be top choice for the revolver (I really like Ruger's GP-100 with either a 4" or 6" barrel). I'll probably go with the 4" barrel because it's small enough for concealed carry.
Likewise, I'd stick with 9mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP for the autoloaders. Lots of guys like the .40 S&W because it gives .45 ACP performance coupled with 9mm capacilty. I'm still not sold on it personally, and the ammo is slightly more expensive than for the .45 ACP (and both are about twice what 9mm ammo costs).
Is he possibly interested in concealed carry? If so, would he likely want his first gun to serve that purpose as well as home defense?
NONE wont happen unless the states roll them back the government dont roll nothing back unless they can amend it to use for something in the future
States wont do it because the government will quit paying them their alotment of yearly or quarterly monies because their not falling in line with the way of govt thinking and thinking for themselves
I know you didn't ask me but here's my $.02. Prior to the election, I predicted that gun owners would be the first bone thrown to the leftists liberals. I'll hold onto that and be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong. At best, I don't expect W to do anything more than preserve the status quo. At worst we could see major restrictions at both ends of the caiber/price ranges. But that's just my opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.