They need to state that if you want to talk about the highly regulated, fully automatic, need special licenses, must be registered, etc. assault weapons okay let’s talk about them. Now if you want to talk about the SEMI automatic sporting rifles used for competitive shooting, self defense, etc. then okay let’s talk about them BUT let’s not confuse the two!

Paul in Florida


Items are named whatever society decides to name them. If the “assault weapon” label is given to semi-automatic rifles and pistols which hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition by a good portion of our society, then that is what they become. Having said that, you will recall my reason for using the term was to catch the attention of people who might have otherwise not read the article. If we ignore the logic of why these types of weapons are necessary, and instead argue terminology, then I believe we are on the way to losing the argument. But, I appreciate your thoughts, thanks for writing.



While I appreciate Marty Hayes’ point of view on the gun control issue, I’m afraid his article, “Why American Citizens Need Assault Weapons” is not persuasive. It’s true that an objective of the Second Amendment was to enable Americans to resist a tyrannical government but it didn’t take long before a majority of the people formed a common understanding that they themselves, the people, were the sovereign government and therefore no right of rebellion against the government existed. Thus, when the Whiskey Rebellion arose in the early 1790s and thousands of participants engaged in violent tax protest against the government, proclaiming their right of rebellion, President Washington enjoyed overwhelming support among the people at large when he raised a federalized militia of 13,000 men and rode at the head of this army to easily suppress the insurgents.

Similarly, when President Lincoln put down what was called the War of the Rebellion–what we call The Civil War–he eliminated once and for all any right of forcible rebellion against the government.

Then, too, to argue as Marty does that a rebellion of “the people” against the government might actually succeed, comparing 100 million gun owners against only several million military and law enforcement personnel, he assumes the people would fight as one. There is no basis for this assumption and it is almost certain that the people would divide into factions, some supporting rebellion, many more supporting “law and order,” and not a few remaining neutral. Further, the military has extraordinarily powerful weapons: bombs, planes, tanks, etc. at their disposal, weapons that would easily overcome any number of high cap AR-15s.

Marty’s remaining argument, that the people need high cap “assault weapons” to defend against criminals similarly armed is more plausible, although it’s my impression that criminal use of such weapons is mostly against a relatively few rich targets such as banks and commercial establishments. The vast majority of citizens who encounter, say, a burglar or a thug on the street are much more likely to be matched up against someone with a handgun.

Again, I think Marty’s heart is in the right place and I applaud his willingness to speak out on this issue.

Frank in California


I guess I don’t share your viewpoint, as I firmly believe we armed citizens of America (also known as the Militia) possess the ability to resist enslavement and tyranny. I am not going to go into tactical details of how this could and likely would be accomplished, but suffice it to say that I believe an armed resistance to gun confiscation would be quick and successful. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that, and at this writing, it looks like the winds of reason still favor the Second Amendment. I am also not concerned about the government using their bombs on the American citizens. But, this is just my opinion, and I value yours, too. Thank-you for sharing your thoughts.


[End of Article.
Please enjoy the next article.]