Gun rationale

At the age of 18, I enlisted in the Army. I completed basic training and attended the U.S. Army Military Police School. By the age of 20 I was leading a five man team armed with 45 caliber semi-automatic pistols, M16 rifles, a 308 caliber sniper rifle, an M60 machine gun, a 40MM grenade launcher and thousands of rounds of ammunition. We drove around up-state New York on a mission that I cannot talk about because it’s still classified. Now the same government that trusted me with that secret and all of that firepower doesn’t think they can trust me with more than ten rounds of ammunition to protect myself and my family.

What have I done? I have committed no crime and most people would consider me to be an upstanding member of the community, yet the government that I served for five years of my life, armed every day, considers me to be a danger to that community.

There are also many people in government saying that there is no reason for anyone to have a “military style weapon”, but last year the Department of Homeland Security submitted a request for proposal for 7000 personal defense weapons. Here is a quote from that request, “Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.”

For those who don’t know about guns, this describes an M16 or M4 military weapon, with full automatic capability, and they specified 30 round magazines, for “personal defense use in close quarters”. That’s a perfect description of your home when several criminals have broken in. If the government says that these weapons are suitable for personal defense, why are they trying to deny the people even a semi-automatic version of it?

Paul Rinker


Submitted by Virtual Newsroom