Sitting at my desk listening to democrats running for president explain how they are going to control everything I do, I can see into my gun cabinet.  In it are eight long gun and a couple of pistols. 

The guns range from the Remington .22 semiautomatic rifle I got for my eighth birthday to the Colt AR 15 semiautomatic rifle with a 30 round magazine attached that I treated myself to a few years ago. 

Its funny when I think most gun banners don’t bat an eye at my .22 although it holds 16 rounds of ammo in its magazine and is the same caliber as the despised AR 15. Bullets for the .22 come with the warning on the box “Warning, range one mile.” And both shoot each time I pull the trigger, with the same semiautomatic actions.

Also in the cabinet is the 12 gauge pump Winchester daddy passed on to me from his daddy. When I was a kid cleaning it, I found his first hunting license from 1938 when he was 16.  It was rolled up in the hole under the butt plate on the stock. 

Next to it is the similar “goose gun” my father-in-law gave me, another pump 12 gauge.

My Marlin lever action 30-30 is there, the gun that killed my first deer in 1968, a 16^th birthday present from my parents. Daddy’s two bird guns are there, a short barrel 12-gauge Winchester for quail and a longer barreled Remington for dove. He gave both to me when he quit hunting. Both are the dreaded “semiautomatic” action.

All the guns my relatives gave me have one thing in common.  If the liberals “universal background check” was law back then, I would have had to undergo a background check before they could give the guns to me. Can an eight-year-old pass one?  How about a 16-year-old?  And how much would it have cost and how long would it have taken?  Would I still be waiting on those presents?

 If you give your child a gun, should you have to run a background check on them first?

A few years ago Ben Moore took the Griffin Gun Club Board of Directors to Callaway Gardens to shoot Sporting Clays. I took one of daddy’s guns, the wrong one for shooting Clays.  Ben let me borrow and shoot his backup over and under 12-gauge skeet gun.

Under proposed “Universal Background Check” laws, that would have made Ben and me felons.

The variety of pistols, from the semiautomatic .40 Glock with the 15 round magazine sitting within easy reach on my desk to the variety of other manufacturers .40 semiautomatic pistols still in their cases, would be banned. As would my AR 15 and AK 47. Both those guns have killed nothing but targets over the years I have had them.

Oddly enough, the most “powerful” gun I have, my bolt action 7 mm mag, would be ok at first.  That is until the gun grabbers started calling it a high-powered long-range sniper rifle and banned it.

I have had guns and shot them since I was five years old and daddy or Harold’s daddy, Mr. Bill, would take us out in the field to shoot a single shot .22. I got a BB gun as a reward after having my tonsil out at six years old.

My guns have never harmed anyone.  A couple of my pistols have scared people twice when driving on the interstate and some fool started harassing me for some reason. Both times they would run by me, pull over in front of me and slam on brakes. I was running with cruise control and there was little traffic, so I could go around them.

Both stopped when, on the fourth pass, I had my semiautomatic pistol lying on the dash in plain view and reached toward it.  I never even had to touch it.

Some folks ask why I am so terrified I need a gun handy.  I’m not, just as keeping fire extinguisher in my boat, all vehicles and house does not mean I am terrified of fires. I am just prepared.

By the way, if democrats get their laws passed and find someone to come confiscate my guns, they were all destroyed in the earthquake yesterday.

You may have seen the alarm company commercial on TV where the woman and her two kids are in the kitchen and a thug shows up at the door.  He breaks out the window with something that looks like a tire tool and the woman and kids head to the bedroom. As the alarm sounds the bad guy runs off. The phone rings, the woman answers and the alarm company sends the cops.

     That is a great ending for alarm companies and Pollyanna’s.  When I see it I have a different vision. The criminal breaks the window, the alarm goes off, the woman and kids head for the bedroom.  The cops get there really fast, arriving in only 15 minutes, to find the woman beat to death with the tire iron and the kids missing.

     Then I have another vision. It’s my house.  The window breaks, my alarm goes off and I run to the bedroom.  When the police arrive 15 minutes later they have to step over the body of the bad guy, laying right where he took the full load of #1 buckshot from the 12 gauge I keep by the bed.

     There are a couple of problems with my vision. First, I never have kids at my house, so I can keep a loaded gun by the bed, something no one with kids should do. Second, I do have an alarm, but it would probably take the sheriff longer than 15 minutes to get to my house since I live in a rural area.

     The biggest problem is what happens next. For me, I would probably be headlined in the paper as a hero for killing a villain.  But in some urban areas in Alabama I would be criticized and in some other states I might be arrested. It would be even worse if I used a pistol.

     According to Gun Owners of America, that is exactly what happened to Ronald Dixon in New York City. Dixon, a Navy veteran working two full-time jobs, confronted a man that broke into his house one night and the criminal ran at him screaming. Dixon shot the thug, who had a 14 page criminal record, seriously wounding him but not killing him.

     What did the local DA do?  He filed charges against Dixon for possession of a handgun, an illegal act according to New York City gun laws.  Dixon faces up to a year in jail for having the gun. He might be facing the top of a coffin without it, but just possessing an unlicensed handgun is against New York City law. And a license is very hard to get there.

     Fortunately here in Alabama it is easier to get a license and you don’t need one to keep a gun in your home for self defense. And you have protection from the government if you have to protect yourself from a criminal. 

In 2006 Governor Riley signed a self defense gun law that allows you to protect yourself. A press release from his office contained the following quote: “With this new law, the decision of crime victims who choose to protect themselves and their families won’t be second-guessed,” said Governor Riley. “When you feel your life or your family is in danger from an intruder, you should be able to practice self-defense and not worry if a judge or court is going to penalize you.”

The legislation passed the Alabama Legislature overwhelmingly by a vote of 82-9 in the House and 30-2 in the Senate.  You gotta wonder about the 11 legislators that voted against this law. Do they represent you?  Are they still in office?

I am a terrorist?

In 1985 when I became a life member of the oldest civil rights organization in the US, I had no idea Orwellian speak so common now would label me a terrorist. Somehow, defending the Bill of Rights by peaceful, legal methods is now terrorism to some.

Regardless of what some gun ban fanatics say, I am proud to be a member of the NRA. Over five million fellow NRA members and I and will continue to support the 2nd Amendment.

I will never understand the illogic of those hating guns. I recently posted on “Fazebook” about the so-called universal background check, saying it would require a father to get a background check on his 12-year-old son or daughter before giving him or her a gun for Christmas. And that is true.

One response amazed me. I was told any father giving their 12-year-old child a gun should be locked up. That is so strange to be totally irrational to me. It is not rational in the world I grew up in and live in.

I got a BB gun at six, a .22 rifle at eight and a .410 at 10. I still have two of them, and not a single one of them has ever harmed anyone, and never will.

I have a .40 semiautomatic pistol I carry, and a pump 12-gauge shotgun loaded with #1 buck shot by my bed for self-defense if I ever need it. Those have never harmed anyone either. I hope they never do, but if threatened I would rather defend myself than being harmed.

Gun control is not about guns, it is about controlling those that don’t agree with your prejudices.

It seems the same folks that want to control us by taking our guns also want to control what we eat, where we spend our money, what kind of vehicle we can drive and every other aspect of our lives. And they demand we believe in everything they spout or want to censor us.

I was an ACLU member for a time because they defended all civil rights. But I dropped my membership when they abandoned the 2nd Amendment. How can a civil rights group claiming to support all civil rights not defend one of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?

I wrote a “Right To Keep And Bear Arms” column for Georgia Outdoor News for years. The following was my July, 2004 column.

The weeks after 9/11/01 most of the 16 houses on my street had American flags flying from mailboxes. Memorial Day weekend this year mine was the only one. How soon we forget.

And how soon we forget the threats to our gun rights. Just four years ago we seemed to be losing the battle to own guns. We had a president that signed every new gun control bill he could help get passed and did not encourage enforcement of existing gun laws against criminals. Lawsuits, some filed by parts of the federal government, threatened to bankrupt gun manufactures and distributors and make it more difficult and expensive for anyone to get a gun or ammunition.

Then President Bush was elected and things calmed down. When Republicans took the majority in the Senate as well as keeping it in the House two years later, little was mentioned about gun ban bills for a while.

Now the gun banners are back. John Kerry says he would rather represent the NAACP than the NRA. Then he says he supports the 2nd Amendment. But he can’t run from his voting record. He made a special trip back to the Senate from the campaign trail to vote to extend the Clinton ban on guns he called “assault weapons,” a vote that also killed a ban on frivolous lawsuits against gun manufactures.

President Bush says he supports extension of the Clinton ban, but has not worked to support its passage. He does say he will sign it if it is passed. He supports banning frivolous lawsuits that single out guns.

Over the past few years Kerry has received a rating of “F” from both the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America. He voted with the Brady Bunch, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, 100 percent of the time. You can not support law-abiding citizen’s right to keep and bear arms and vote for every law suggested to restrict that right.

Watch what John Kerry says during the next few months, but remember his voting record. If you are a gun owner and want to keep your gun, keep his actions, not his words, in mind when you vote.

Closer to home, Herman Cain, Mac Collins and Johnny Isakson are running in the Republican primary for the U. S. Senate Seat Zell Miller is giving up. Collins and Isakson have voting records as Congressmen to examine and all will be rated by the NRA and GOA in coming months.

On his web site Isakson says “”We need criminal control not gun control. We should not only support gun ownership, shooting sports, and hunting, we should encourage them. One of our most cherished freedoms as Americans is our right to keep and bear arms, and we must never let anyone threaten it.”

That seems to be a big improvement over his past voting record. He voted for the Clinton mandatory background check and waiting period in 1999 and voted three times to back lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Collins’ web site does not have a formal statement on the 2nd Amendment or gun control, but it points out Isakson’s votes in favor of gun control laws. The inference is that Collins opposes them. Cain’s web site does not mention gun control in any way.

Two Democrats, Denise Majette and Mary Squires are running for the nomination in this race. Majette’s site does not mention gun control but she has supported gun control laws in her two years in the US House of Representatives

Squires site says: “I support legal gun ownership and am a gun owner myself. I believe that we should do all we can to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Congress should close the loopholes that allow questionable sales at gun shows, permitting easy access to assault weapons that all too often end up on our city streets and in our schools.”

I am not sure what kind of gun she owns and wonder if there are any restrictions she would not support based on that statement. It sounds like something straight from Sara Brady.

Your vote in the primaries on July 20 are critically important. We must send a senator to Washington to replace Zell Miller that will continue to support gun owners. The next few years will be full of bills to restrict your right to own guns. If we don’t send a strong gun rights supporter to the Senate we will lose some of our rights.

I will be voting for Mac Collins in the primary and hopefully in the election. He was my state representative and has been my U.S. Congressman. I can not remember him ever voting for a bill to restrict my right to own a gun. He has earned my vote.

This July 4th I hope every house is flying an American Flag – and I hope every gun owner is ready to fight for the right to own a gun.

I bought an AR-15 rifle about 20 years ago. It was one of the models banned under the Clinton “assault weapon” ban that stopped manufacture and sale of types of rifles that some consider too ugly to own but did not ban possession of them.

My rifle has a high-power scope on it and I use it for deer hunting, shooting varmints and target shooting. It is light weight, has little kick and is fun to shoot.

The NRA estimates there are between 8.5 and 15 million similar guns owned by folks like me in the US. Even liberals like the staff of Gabby Giffords, gun ban crusader, say there are about ten million of us owning them.

Gun banners claim those type guns are a huge problem and are used in crime often. But FBI statistics show, for example in 2011, of the 12,664 murders in the
US that year, 323 were committed with any kind of rifle, including so called “assault weapons.” Compare that to 1694 committed with knives and 496 with hammers and clubs. Other years show similar numbers.

California Democrat Congressman Eric Swalwell, one of the gaggle running for president, has a solution to this huge, according to him, problem. He agrees with the NRA that there are about 15 million law-abiding US citizens that own these guns.

His solution? Make it illegal to own one of these guns, confiscate them from us and lock anyone of us up that do not turn them in.

So this democrat president hopeful wants to put up to 15 million law-abiding US citizens in federal prison. Of course, he is the same one that in previous interview, said he would be willing to use nuclear weapons against US citizens that owned the guns he does not like.

Even if the federal government could confiscate every gun from law-abiding citizens, it would not stop criminals. If such laws worked, we would have no illegal drugs in the US.

Every new gun control law introduced points out how in-effective those laws really are. There are already an estimated 20,000 federal, state and local gun control laws in the US. If any of them affected crime, there would be no need for more.

Every democrat running for president has called for more and stricter gun laws controlling law-abiding citizens

What would you think if you were talking about our system of government to some folks and one said, “Most of the time, the system works, protecting the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority?” And the other responded “The exact inverse it true. A noisy minority backed by a powerful lobbying group, can effectively stymie passage of even the most basic removal of their rights.”

You might wonder if they were agreeing even though one said they totally disagreed. Both are saying our system of government protects the rights of the minority.

What if one person said those two things during the same conversation? You might question their reasoning ability.

John Micek said both those things, in consecutive paragraphs, in his March 30 editorial in the “Griffin Daily News.” If you question his reasoning ability, you should understand he is an extreme liberal and he was trying to argue in favor of restricting our civil rights in the 2nd Amendment.

It is typical for folks to like our system of government when it supports their prejudices. But in my experience, mostly liberals want to change it to suit them when it does not.

Micek further argues that he wants our government to do what the New Zealand government recently did. They banned a wide range of guns in private ownership after an insane fool used a gun to shoot people. Our system of government helps protect a group of people from losing their rights due to the actions of one individual.

Those like Micek wanting to restrict our rights and ban guns will continue to argue the 2nd Amendment does not say what it says and try to change our government, constitution and laws to punish groups they hate.

I especially like folks who were born in England telling us we should do away with our guns and the 2nd Amendment. Piers Morgan is famous for it. He is a British citizen with talk shows on many outlets. He is quoted in the Daily Mail two weeks after a school shooting here a few years ago as saying “My campaign against America’s gun laws didn’t begin two weeks ago.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254758/Piers-Morgan-Deport-If-America-wont-change-crazy-gun-laws-I-deport-myself.html

After demanding we do away with the 2nd Amendment, he whines gun owners criticize him for his comments, trying to hide behind our 1st Amendment, saying he has the right to say what he wants. As a British citizen he likes our constitution when it supports his prejudices but hates it when it does not.

Even worse are immigrants from Britain and other supposedly “free“ countries that have become US citizens. If you want to move and live here, at least respect our laws and rights, don’t come here and demand we change to suit your prejudices you bring.

We haven’t cared about what the British think about our guns since 1776.

“We flood communities with so many guns, that it is easier for a teen to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book,” claimed President Obama That statement ranks right up there with “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” on any truth meter.

It is against federal law for anyone younger than 21 years old to buy or possess a pistol. Glock makes only pistols. A teenager is younger than 21. So the statement is inherently false unless you add “legal Glock.” But that just shows the futility of more laws like the ones already ignored.

If gun control laws worked those supporting them would not have to lie.

I’m still waiting to hear about all the shootings in Cleveland during the RNC by the folks legally carrying guns openly. The head of the police union there lost all credibility with me when he said “We are going to be looking very, very hard at anyone who has an open carry,” he said. “An AR-15, a shotgun, multiple handguns. It’s irresponsible of those folks — especially right now — to be coming downtown with open carry AR’s or anything else. I couldn’t care less if it’s legal or not.” I don’t want those folks walking around with automatic weapons.

So this guy is head of the police union and doesn’t care what is legal? And he doesn’t know or wants to ignore the fact that automatic weapons are almost impossible to own in the US right now? That scares me.

Several times tv news shows showed folks walking around the convention area with ARs and other mean looking guns on their backs. Did you hear of any shootings done by them? NO, because there were none. Law-abiding citizens with guns are not the problem and more laws won’t affect those that do not obey them.

I have to fear for the future of the US when I listen to folks like Michael Moore. He is a hero of liberals and recently said: “Don’t get me wrong. I have great hope for the country I live in. Things are better. A majority of Americans now take the liberal position on just about every polling question posed to them: More gun control – check. A huge shift has taken place – just ask the socialist who won 22 states this year. And there is no doubt in my mind that if people could vote from their couch at home on their X-box or PlayStation, Hillary would win in a landslide.”

Look at the first part – is that what you want for your country? And don’t imagine he is accurate – the last Gallup poll I could find that asked the simple question “In general, do you feel the laws covering the sale of firearm should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?” found that 53 percent said the same or less verses 47 percent wanting more.

So Moore is either lying or simply does not know what he is talking about. Or both. After all, he wants us to be a socialists country – while he hordes his millions, I’m sure.

The last two sentences are very telling, and probably right. The folks too lazy to get off their couches and go vote, those that playing computer games is more important than voting, support Hillary and are liberal. Is that who we want running out country, those so sorry they won’t work or vote but sit on their couches playing games and living off the productive members of our society? And no doubt support gun control. Not me.

If you are a gun owner, the midterm election on November 6 is even more important, especially the Georgia Governor’s race. Brian Kemp fully supports your civil rights under the 2nd Amendment. Stacey Abrams does not support them at all.

On the nonpartisan website “On the Issues” http://www.ontheissues.org/Stacey_Abrams.htm candidates’ stances on issues are listed by category based on comments, past votes and policy statements. They are given without comment. The following are given under “Gun Control” and “Crime,” followed by my comments. Some of her positions are from her own website.

“Gun-carry license doesn’t apply to ‘campus carry.” (Mar 2017) She is against allowing 21-year-old students that have undergone a fingerprint background check to earn a Georgia Weapons License to carry their legal gun for protection.

“State should enact reasonable restrictions on guns.“ I’m pretty sure what she considers “reasonable” would not be considered as such by law-abiding gun owners since they would only restrict the us, not criminals.

“Require universal background checks.” That is gun control speak that means you could not give your grandfather’s shotgun to your child without paying a licensed gun dealer to run a background check on them. Also, you could not sell a gun to a friend or family member with paying for the check.

Based on her voting record while in the Georgia legislature, she is rated “F” by the NRA, and she says she is proud of that rating. Every gun ban group I could find supports her.

She is endorsed by Hillary Clinton – I received a robo call from Hillary saying, “I’m Hillary Clinton, and I urge you to vote for my good friend Stacey Abrams.”

She is also endorsed by past presidents Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter and congresswomen Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, Kamala Harris and Nancy Pelosi. US Senators endorsing her include Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker. Other politicians endorsing her are Eric Holder and Joe Biden.

On a couple of issues other than guns, she is against mandatory sentences for those assaulting police officers and wants everyone to pay their “fair share.” Just how much of my money that I earned is my “fair share” for the government to take away from me to give to others, after taking out “administrative” fees?

Fortunately, Georgia Governors cannot make laws. Unfortunately, they can veto pro-gun legislation, help guide antigun legislation through the legislature, and use their bully pulpit to push it.

As an adamant civil rights supporter, and pretty much a one issue voter, my decision is easy.

Headlines in the Tuesday Griffin Daily News: “Five arrested in two SWAT raids.” If you read the article, you saw the five were arrested for drug dealing. And two of the five were charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

It is against federal and state laws for felons to possess firearms, and those laws have been on the books for years. But in many arrest felons have illegal firearms. Yet gun banners want more laws that affect only law-abiding citizens, since criminals ignore laws.

If convicted felons can easily get guns, how stupid is it to call for more gun laws. They do not work and only those that follow laws are affected.