Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Jim Darnell's 'pragmatic' article about AR-15s found

Earlier today, I lamented the fact that outdoor writer Jim Darnell seemed to have figured out the danger to his career posed by his ill-advised screed against sporting AR-15s, in time to pull it off the internet before it rose up to bite him.

Luckily, someone at AR15.com was too quick for him:

Production of the AR-15 sporting rifles a big mistake

Choose your battles carefully.

That’s good advice to parents with teenagers. It’s good advice for politicians. Some issues are too emotionally charged and not worth the fight. I would give the same advice to the American gun manufacturers and the National Rifle Association.

I’m a strong Second Amendment rights person. I stand against fire arms registration and government control and confiscation of our guns. But I strongly feel that the firearm manufacturers of our country are making a big mistake in producing the AR-15 sporting rifles.

Ever since Colt introduced the first AR-15 into the hunting world more than 30 years ago they have been very popular. It’s now being produced in several heavier calibers by all major gun manufacturers and is the all-time No. 1 selling rifle.

The AR-15 looks very similar to the M16 service rifle first used in combat in Vietnam. It’s similar in looks to the military rifle used by our vets in the first Gulf War. It also has similar features to an AK-47.

Therein lies the problem. These modern sporting rifles are inflammatory in looks — they don’t look like modern hunting rifles. They are military in looks. They look like they were produced to kill men, not deer.

The AK-47 is the most widely distributed assault rifle in the world and almost always associated with wild terrorists. And most Americans can’t tell the difference in the looks of an AK-47 and a modern AR-15 hunting rifle.

Granted, the AR-15 is not an assault weapon.

Unlike the AK-47 it is not fully automatic (pull the trigger and fire the whole clip). It shoots one bullet at a time like my semi-automatic 30-06 that I hunt deer with.

Granted, the new AR-15’s are compact, light, rugged and accurate. They make excellent hunting rifles. The problem is their inflammatory looks.

The press immediately jumped on the letters AR to mean “assault rifle.” That’s not what AR means. AR abbreviates Armalite. But the anti-gun press conveniently overlooks the facts.

The firearms manufacturers defend their production of the AR-15 modern hunting rifles with an argument from history. World War I soldiers used the 1903 Springfield bolt-action rifle in combat. When they returned to America they wanted a hunting rifle in the same 30-06 cartridge with the smooth bolt action cycling that they experienced with the Springfield. Thus, the production of millions of great bolt action sporting rifles like the Model 70 Winchester, the Ruger 77, and the 700 Remington. The bolt action rifle is still the most accurate and popular rifle among the world’s big game hunters.

Then came WW II and the introduction of the first semi-automatic service rifle, the M-1 30-06, popularly known as the Garand (named after the inventor).

When these brave service men returned home a wide range of semi-automatic hunting rifles and shotguns gained widespread popularity among both hunters and target-shooting enthusiasts.

The manufacturers ask, “Shouldn’t Vietnam and Gulf War vets have a hunting rifle like their service rifles?”

I don’t think the argument is valid. After WW II, crazy terrorists weren’t running through the streets firing 1903 bolt action Springfields into the air.

No Arab terrorists were on the daily newscasts blasting people with the semi-automatic Garand after WW II.

It’s the AK-47 and its long history with revolution, riots and terrorism that’s the problem.

The average person in America says why do you need a terrorist’s assault rifle to hunt? Again, the AR-15 is not a terrorist’s weapon. It is not fully automatic. It is not an assault rifle. It just looks like one.

So why endanger our Second Amendment rights by manufacturing and defending a modern hunting rifle that has such an inflammatory design? It plays right into the hands of the anti-gun movement. They love the looks of the AR-15. It’s easy to enrage the average American against such an “assault rifle.”

Let’s get wise. We have a difficult enough task defending our right to own firearms without this foolish battle.

Jim Darnell is an ordained minister and host/producer of the syndicated television show “God’s Great Outdoors.” His column appears every Thursday in the Daily Record.
Again, it's not quite as bad as what Zumbo said--he didn't call AR-15s "terrorist rifles"--he just said that since they look like "terrorist rifles" to the public, we should meekly bow to their tender sensibilities, and, to borrow a phrase, "not scare the white people."

If they're that easily frightened, I'm going to put the fear into 'em, and enjoy it.


tom said...

San Marcos is my County Seat. Lots of us own Stoner pattern rifles in Hays County and would like to apologize to the rest of America for Jim Darnell.

Time to wander off later and load some 6.5 Grendel for a Stoner pattern rifle??? Maybe print up some Darnell targets for Sunday range time???

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

Now Tom--that wouldn't be "pragmatic" ;-).

Mark in Wyoming said...

Greetings from Wyoming,
just read the attatched article,and it instantly came to mind that this is aperson , that will for his own sake throw someone else under the bus.
What i mean is, better to loose some , rather than all, and he uses the simple fact that appearance is the deciding factior with no recognition that his own semiaut operates on the very same principle as the one that "looks" bad, how far of a stretch is it , if they are allowed to bann something strictly on appearance , which alot of the aw ban did, before they start saying actions alone are basis for banning , this is the slow whittling down the left has been trying for yrs , ban 1 , then another , then another.
im reminded of the old germans tale after ww2, when they came foe my neighbor the professor i didnt worry because i wasnt an acedemic , when they came for mayor , i didnt worry because im not apolitician, when they came for the priest , i wasnt worried because i wasnt religious, when they came for me, there was no one left to worry.
there are many versions of what i just said and the morale is always the same. either stand together , or be eliminated seperately, the battle isnt over the right of which guns we should be defending , the battle is over the very right to own any of them at all, because if you let them dictate what you can own , youll eventually loose them all, impossable? ask the uk , austrailia or anywhere else the people have been disarmed , better yet , ask someone that survived germany during ww2, it will open your eyes, they said it we live it , never again


Anonymous said...

I believe it was Ben Franklin who said, "We must hang together or, certainly, we will hang alone." (or words very close to that).

He was/is right.

Darnell is obviously a dufus.

Nex ut Tyrannus!

Anonymous said...

Oh yea, if the "looks" of the rifle is "disturbing" or whatever, then the cure is to ensure more and more Americans get accustomed to seeing these type weapons as a routine matter of their day. Once they get used to the "look", it will no longer be an issue.

So, throw those AR15s over your shoulders and walk around with them as often as possible.

tom said...

Stoner and Kali rifles will be welcome as well as Augs and other fun things, Jim Darnell can stay home.

Anonymous said...

I haven't had luck yet, but I am using my semi-auto AK47 fro deer hunting this fall.

I suppose that would make Mr. Darnell crap his pants.


mountainman said...

I would've thought that an intelligent man like Jim Darnell would've seen the flaw in his logic before committing his thoughts to print. Many years ago I had similar sentiments to his. It took me only a matter of minutes to realize the foolishness of them. When has giving into the gun control crowd ever gained us anything? Has it ever stopped them? Did they ever say,"We've gotten what we wanted, now we can rest..."? No! They always come back to take the next step. Every gun control law passed is always found to have "loopholes", doesn't it? Or the next tragedy justifies more restrictions, and more bans that don't affect people who don't care about law. Who IS affected? Who does pay the price in lost liberty? Terrorists? Gang-bangers? Mass murderers? Do they apply for permits? Do they abide by waiting periods? Do they stay away from "Gun Free Zones"? Do they turn back from the convenience store that posts the "No guns" signs?
It's simple logic people, think before you give in! Will it do you any good, or will it just move you closer to helplessness?

Anonymous said...

I was a cop for 30 years and had to give up my personal AR15 years ago with the first California AW ban. I flat don't understand how any human being other than an anti-gun liberal could be so stupid as to say what Darnell said. Get the rail, tar and feathers!!

Anonymous said...

As a 38-year retired Army career soldier I thinks it's odd and funny that so many men would desire a hunting rifle that makes them look like a soldier, but the demand is obviously there and the company is just taking advantage of it.