We Need More National Coverage Of F/a's
I'd be in favor of MORE national exposure, as long as it's not negative -- more people need to learn that this country's independance was GUARANTEED by the constitution, of which the Second Amendment was a PART of, and not an addition to, and cannot be changed without a CONSTITUTIONAL change (not an amendment) and cannot be changed or altered at will or because of "political correctness," being "old fashioned," or "out of date." It applied to the then current, most up-to-date military firearms of the time. The second GUARANTEES the constitution, and few understand that. Only ONE person in a THOUSAND (1 in 1,000) know the five guarantees of the First Amendment. (650 times more than that 1 out of a thousand, [65% more] can name the members of the Simpson's comedy family.)
R. Lee Ermy spending last October's weekend shoot at Knob Creek is what we need MORE of -- the Today show, today, showed a female TV personality "learning" to fly a (?) Cessna 172, (many think that's dangerous too, but the most dangerous US flying is medical, who'd a' thunk?) and sometime recently a women's group did the CCW course, including the range -- the reporter (previously anti-gun, and "afraid of them") loved the course punching holes in paper humanoid targets, and range time, bought a handgun!!!
The public needs to know an automatic in no more "dangerous" than a hammer -- I can hit you in the head 72 times with a ball pein hammer, about as quick I can reload my 32 round Sten MK II once and hit you (maybe) 72 times with a 9mm. I think I'd take the chance of being hit by a 9mm first!
CARRY on!
Gary
