The Modern Sporting Rifle: A Marine Vet, Retired Police Officer, and Firearms Instructor's Perspective on the AR-15

 

Dear Journal,

I've been thinking a lot lately about the ongoing debate surrounding the AR-15 and similar modern sporting rifles (MSRs). As a Marine vet, retired police officer, and firearms instructor with 27 years of experience, I have a unique and informed perspective on this issue. I feel compelled to weigh in on the misinformation and fear-mongering that often dominates the conversation.

First, let's get some facts straight. The AR-15 is not an "assault rifle" or a "weapon of war," despite what some politicians and media outlets would have you believe. The term "AR" doesn't stand for "assault rifle" but rather "ArmaLite Rifle," named after the company that first developed it. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle, meaning it fires one round with each pull of the trigger. It is not a machine gun, and it is not designed for combat use.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) provides some excellent resources on the truth about MSRs, and I highly recommend checking them out. According to the NSSF, MSRs are among the most popular firearms in America, with an estimated 20 million in circulation. They are used for a wide range of legitimate purposes, including target shooting, hunting, and self-defense. As a firearms instructor, I've seen firsthand how these rifles can be used safely and responsibly by law-abiding citizens.

Now, let's talk about the argument that MSRs are uniquely dangerous and should be banned. This is simply not supported by the facts. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, rifles of all kinds are used in a small fraction of homicides each year. In fact, you are more likely to be beaten to death with a blunt object or stabbed with a knife than you are to be shot and killed with a rifle. As a retired police officer, I've seen the statistics and the reality on the streets, and the data just doesn't support the idea that MSRs are a unique threat.

Moreover, the idea that MSRs are uniquely capable of causing mass casualties is also a myth. The deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, the Virginia Tech massacre, was carried out with a pair of handguns. And let's not forget that the 9/11 terrorists used box cutters to hijack four airplanes and kill nearly 3,000 people. Evil people will find a way to do evil things, regardless of the tools at their disposal.

As a Marine Vet, retired police officer, and firearms instructor over 20 years, I understand the importance of firearms and the Second Amendment. I've seen firsthand how guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens can be a force for good, both at home and abroad. And I've seen how disarming the populace can lead to tyranny and oppression. As a Vet and a Ret. police officer, I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment. I believe in the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms responsibly.

But beyond the practical arguments, there's also a matter of principle. The Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting; it's about the fundamental right to self-defense and the preservation of liberty. It's about ensuring that the people have the means to resist tyranny and defend their freedoms. The AR-15 and other MSRs are a powerful symbol of that freedom. They are a tangible reminder that the ultimate authority in this country rests with the people, not the government. And that's why the idea of banning them is so offensive to so many Americans.

But the debate over MSRs is not just about principles; it's also about effectiveness. The simple fact is that gun control laws don't work. They don't prevent criminals from obtaining firearms, and they don't stop mass shootings. All they do is disarm law-abiding citizens and make it harder for them to defend themselves and their families. As a firearms instructor, I've seen how responsible gun ownership can save lives and protect communities.

Look at cities like Chicago and Baltimore, which have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. They also have some of the highest rates of gun violence. Meanwhile, states with more permissive gun laws tend to have lower rates of violent crime. This is not a coincidence.

In conclusion, the debate over MSRs is not about safety or common sense; it's about freedom and the preservation of our constitutional rights. It's about standing up for the principles that this country was founded on and rejecting the fear-mongering and misinformation that dominates so much of the conversation.

As a Marine vet, retired police officer, and firearms instructor, I urge my fellow Americans to educate themselves about the facts surrounding MSRs and to stand up for their Second Amendment rights. Don't be swayed by emotional arguments or scare tactics. Look at the evidence, and make an informed decision based on the facts.

Our country depends on it. Our future depends on it. And our Constitution demands it.

Semper Fi,

A Disgruntled Marine Vet, Retired Police Officer, and Firearms Instructor

P.S. For more information on the truth about MSRs, I highly recommend checking out the NSSF's website at https://www.nssf.org/msr/. They provide a wealth of resources and information on this important topic, and they are a great advocate for the rights of law-abiding gun owners nationwide. Let's support their efforts and stand up for our Second Amendment rights. Let's promote responsible gun ownership and ensure that our freedoms are protected for generations to come.