Response to Congressman’s Quip About Not Needing An Assault Rifle to Shoot a Duck

Minnesota Democratic Congressman Rick Nolan appeared on the CBS program Face the Nation on January 6. Among the topics discussed was gun-control. Nolan, who claims to be a hunter, seems to be following in President Barack Obama’s propaganda footsteps by trying to make the Second Amendment about hunters.

On the program Nolan flippantly quipped that he did not need an assault weapon in order to shoot a duck. He went on to say that most hunters don’t want nor do they need an assault rifle, nor do they need a 20-50 click magazine. He also said that they don’t have a problem with background checks.

The Second Amendment is not about hunters, it’s about the right to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government, but Obama, Nolan and the rest of the liberal Democrats don’t want you to know that.

First of all I’ve known many gun owners in my life and very, very few of them favor background checks or any form of gun registration whatsoever. They don’t believe the government has the right nor should they know who owns what guns. There is only one purpose for the government knowing where all the guns are and that is so they know where to confiscate them from. Therefore his statement about most hunters favoring background checks is untrue, inaccurate and part of the Obama anti-gun propaganda machine.

He may be right in saying that most hunters don’t want or need an assault rifle, but many homeowners who desire to protect their families and their property to desire to have assault-style rifles with high-capacity magazines. An example of the effectiveness of assault-style rifles with high-capacity magazines can be found in the LA riots some years back. The rioters and looters were going store to store smashing windows, stealing what they could carry, and then setting the stores on fire. In the midst of that carnage were several stores owned by Koreans who were armed with assault style rifles with high-capacity magazines. Their stores survived while other stores around them did not. The only thing that made a difference were the weapons they had with which to defend themselves and their property.

Nolan’s quip about not needing an assault weapon to shoot a duck is a statement made from stupidity and absurdity. However some of his constituents have taken Nolan to task for his comment and have issued a video letter to him along with the two US senators from the state of Minnesota.

Stuart Mills, a member of the family that owns the Mills Fleet Farm chain of stores in the upper Midwest narrates the video letter to Congressman Nolan. In this video it demonstrates the difference between using an assault style rifle, in this case a Huldra AR-15, and a 12gauge shotgun with double ought buckshot. Take a moment to watch the video letter in the demonstration between the lethal destruction of the AR-15 and the shotgun.

Just past the five-minute mark in the video they show a statement that I found interesting, and it reads:

“Based on Military and Police After Action Reports, in the majority of cases, multiple single projectile bullets are required to stop an attacker.”

How often have you seen reports when a police officer has to fire upon a suspect that the officer fires multiple rounds from whatever type of gun he is using. Rarely do you hear of an officer firing a single shot when they found it necessary to use deadly force.

So what happens if a gang of three or four people kick in your door and start to attack you and your family? If, as military and police reports state, multiple rounds are needed to stop it attacker and you have 3 to 4 attackers, you will need a magazine that is capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Perhaps the politicians want you to tell the intruders to stop while you can put another magazine in and continue to shoot them.

The whole issue of gun control has nothing to do with hunting, assault style weapons, or high-capacity magazines. It has everything to do with a political agenda to first identify who in this country owns guns and what type of guns they own, so they know what houses to go after when they begin to confiscate our weapons.

Do you want Obama to know if you have any guns and what type they are? Is it really any of their business? A clear and concise reading of the Second Amendment states that the government shall not infringe upon the rights of the people to own and bear firearms. Yet any form of gun control is an infringement upon that right.

Over the years the liberal progressives have slowly chipped away at the Second Amendment by enacting one gun-control measure after another. Little by little, bit by bit, we’ve allowed them to violate our Second Amendment rights. Now they’re not going little by little or bit by bit. Instead they’re going after chunks and major sections of our constitutional rights and be guaranteed that they will not stop there until the entire Second Amendment has been eradicated from the Bill of Rights and Americans have been stripped of their firearms.

Once that is accomplished and we are all subject to being enslaved by a socialistic government that cares nothing for the people, our life in America will become like it was in the former Soviet Union or communist China. This my friends is the purpose and the goal of the anti-gun agenda of President Barack Hussein Obama and the progressive Democratic Party, and they’re not going to stop until they either accomplish their mission or the American people rise up in revolution and stop them. Where do you stand? What will you do when the time comes to either stand and fight or cower and become a spineless slave?

You may have to make that decision much sooner than you realize!

[js-disqus]