Today's JPFO Alert explores the ridiculous "reasoning" behind fears that a new military sidearm will cause more civilian "gun violence."
If the military stumbles upon new technology to make firearms more effective, we the people are owed access to that technology, and we must take it, by whatever means necessary.
And as always, if you haven't seen all the great JPFO Alerts written by David, Nicki, Claire, and Mama Liberty, you owe it to yourself to fix that.
Stumble it!
1 comments:
From what I've heard, the Army is not seeking "innovations." They are talking about trading up to a larger caliber handgun (.40 or .45), because of complaints that the 9mm lacks adequate stopping power. If a new handgun is adopted, it will likely be some model that has already been on the market, legally available to police departments and private citizens, for years. Maybe the Glock Model 22, Beretta Model 96 (basically, a .40 version of the M9), or SIG-Sauer P229.
If the Army (and/or Defense Department) does adopt a new pistol, that does not necessarily mean that surplus M9's will flood the civilian market. For one thing, the older pistols have seen a lot of hard use in Iraq and Afghanistan, and may be worn out beyond repair. They may have to be destroyed anyway. If they are still usable, they may be sold to police departments or private security companies, or to friendly foreign armed forces (when the US military adopted M4 rifles, the older M-16's were sold to the IDF). If they are sold in the US, it will be to licensed dealers, who are required to check ID and verify their customers' eligibility (no criminal record, over 21, no history of dangerous mental illness, etc.).
If the anti-gun fanatics want to talk about military weapons getting into the wrong hands, they should start with Obama, who has smuggled guns to Mexican drug cartels, and who has supplied weapons to the parent organization of Hamas and Al Qaeda.
Post a Comment