Only the "LEOnely"


"Violent crimes, shootings, are not ever prevented by the presence of a police officer, no matter how many thousands of police officers you have,"

~Carty Finkbeiner, Mayor – Toledo, Ohio. May 2009

Recently, a firearms-based publication caused quite a stir and wound up alienating a portion of of its audience and advertisers because the editor made a foolish statement along the lines of "civilians have no need of an HK MP-7 because it serves no sporting purpose, etc..." The shooting community was not amused. Fact is... Americans just don't like being told "no" and it's dangerous to do so. Let me elucidate:

When the 18th amendment outlawed the legitimate use of alcohol in this country, any use, even reasonable use, was granted an official government endorsement as "bad" therefore "abuse." Drinking became indulging and recognized as a petty rebellion that everyone did, despite it being illegal. Americans, of course, being naturally rebellious in the ancient Satanic fashion, when placed under constraints we consider to be stupid or unreasonable, will not willingly comply, but will outpace ourselves coming up with newer and more devious ways of subverting that authority we consider to be excessive. Prohibition was a "triple-dog-dare-ya" that lead to the glorification of the gangster culture, a trait that (thanks to the thrice-great entertainment industry) has survived and prospered to this very day. The 21st amendment that repealed prohibition was the Coup de Gras. America had enjoyed its taste of rebellious bliss in their bathtub gin and Kentucky moonshine. Now they had become as gods, knowing good and evil, and they found they much preferred the taste of rebellion's indulgence to that of moderation's responsibility.

Let's talk about "need." According to the CDC, homicide rates of "Normal Folk" in America average somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 fatalities per 100,000 people. According to the FBI, law enforcement killed-in-the-line-of-duty (solely as a result of felonious homicide) rates are somewhere in the 3.3 per 100,000 rate. So according to this, you, the average citizen, have almost twice as good a chance as being murdered as a law enforcement officer, despite the nature of their work. If you rule out self-destructive activities and lifestyles, like dealing drugs on someone else's turf, etc... your odds improve greatly, but the statistics don't help you much if it is you in the front row of the theater when an armed psychopath shows up, or your family on your way to worship when someone with a different, more violent ideology feels like you and your kind need to be stopped, or your community when a charismatic leader convinces the country to go insane and start exterminating people because of their ancestry or creed.

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." ~ Ghandi

Despite history, statistics and logic; for years, the main stream media, some politicians, the marketing department at Heckler and Koch, and a bunch of other assorted busybodies have been chanting the same refrain: "only the police and military need... [insert your weapon of choice here: such as AK-47's or assault rifles or handguns or...whatever]."

Really? Let’s analyze that: Peace Officers and Soldiers are usually ISSUED weapons, are they not? There is a lot of historical symbolism in being issued a weapon. Being issued a weapon or wearing a uniform doesn’t automatically give someone moral character, in fact, when someone puts on a uniform, or gets issued a weapon, it generally means they have taken some kind of oath or obligation to follow orders, even if those orders conflict with what they personally believe. (See also the Milgram experiment, and "we did as we were told.") Anyone wearing a uniform is operating under a different social contract than everyone not dressed like them. So what these people are actually saying when they proclaim "civilians" aren't "professional enough" for the MP-7 (or Glock .40 as the case may be Agent Paige), is that because you haven't taken an oath to obey some authority figure, you can't be trusted with something that may actually be a weapon. Of course, at this point someone will try to muddy the waters: "you don't need a machine gun to go duck hunting..." or some other inanity. To which, we must patiently remind them that the Second Amendment has little to do with recreational activities and everything to do with A. Self-defense and B. the ability to resist tyranny. But if we need to get a little more explicit:

“…there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”

United States Supreme Court – Bowers v. deVito 1982

...and why is there no constitutional right to be "protected?" ...because it grants us both the right and responsibility to protect ourselves in the Second Amendment! In fact, it states it in the form of a mandate.

The great confusion is that the publication in question, and companies like H&K are "anti-gun." Far from it, in fact it seems more accurate to describe them as "anti-civilian." For example, H&K will not certify someone as an armorer unless they are Law Enforcement or Military...and they won't sell you factory parts unless you are an HK certified armorer. so if you are a civilian HK owner - good luck getting parts or even repair services if you ever need them. Mercifully, if you spent the money for an H&K firearm, you can probably count on it holding up to a fair amount of use and abuse with even minimal care.

So, let's sum things up:

1. Statistically, cops are less likely to be killed on the job due to all occupational causes than grain millers (for example), and roughly half as likely to be killed on the job as the average American is to be murdered.

2. Because people who wear uniforms take an oath to serve some government entity, that government entity will strive to maintain the moral high ground (and superior firepower) by forbidding those who don't wear that uniform from owning certain categories of weaponry - despite it being unconstitutional and, if history is any judge, immoral.

3. H&K Hates you