Home > Shooting Sports > Sandy Hook, Guns and Hard Questions

Sandy Hook, Guns and Hard Questions

January 5th, 2013
Marketing Advertising Blog — VuManhThang.Com



As of some of you may know, I am an avid and passionate shooting sports fan. I have been since I shot a gun at age ten. I own and use guns, frequently and absolutely enjoy it. Does it bother me? No. Does it cause me any discomfort in light of the shooting tragedy our nation experience, again? Absolutely not. Is there anything wrong with a Lutheran pastor enjoying the shooting sports and shooting guns? No, not at all. I feel sorry for people who live in countries that deprive them of the fundamental human right of self-defense and the ability to defend themselves against evil, violence and a tyrannical government.

I understand that there was some chatter on an Australian pastors group about my shooting hobby. I’m sorry the brothers there have not had the chance to enjoy the shooting sports like we are able to here in the USA. However, one of their countrymen has a great music video I enjoy a lot. Take a look/listen at Steve Lee’s “I Like Guns.” Good stuff.

I have waited a bit to let the hype die down after the tragedy in Sandy Hook to offer some thoughts to my shooting channel and the YouTube community. My channel on YouTube has now gone over 1,000,000 views of my various shooting videos. That’s peanuts compared to many other channels but with nearly 2,000 subscribers and one million page views, I wanted to offer my perspective. These comments are purely “kingdom of the left” in nature.

Here you go:


By the way, here are forty reasons why not to ban guns:

  1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.
  2. Washington DC’s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis’ high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
  3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”
  4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
  5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
  6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
  7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
  8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
  9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should “put up no defense – give them what they want, or run” (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don’t Die – People Do, 1981, p. 125).
  10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
  11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
  12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
  13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.
  14. These phrases: “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people” all refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the state.
  15. “The Constitution is strong and will never change.” But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
  16. Rifles and handguns aren’t necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
  17. Private citizens shouldn’t have handguns, because they aren’t “military weapons”, but private citizens shouldn’t have “assault rifles”, because they are military weapons.
  18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940′s, 1950′s and 1960′s, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
  19. The NRA’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign is responsible social activity.
  20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
  21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
  22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is “an accident waiting to happen” and gun makers’ advertisements aimed at women are “preying on their fears.”
  23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
  24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
  25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
  26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a “weapon of mass destruction” or an “assault weapon.”
  27. Most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
  28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
  29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.
  30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
  31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
  32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do “civilians” who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
  33. We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
  34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
  35. Private citizens don’t need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
  36. Citizens don’t need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
  37. “Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
  38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that’s bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that’s good.
  39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
  40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to “keep guns out of the wrong hands.” Guess what? You have the wrong hands.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Categories: Shooting Sports
  1. Kim
    January 5th, 2013 at 18:15 | #1

    Well done, Pastor McCain. Will be sharing this at Facebook and Twitter.

  2. Ken Howes
    January 5th, 2013 at 19:08 | #2

    In 1775, a revolution began by citizens who owned their own guns and took them to war. In 1783, the British signed the peace treaty recognizing our independence. In 1790, the Second Amendment, assuring the right to KEEP and BEAR arms, was adopted. It is idiotic for gun controllers to assert that the amendment has nothing to do with citizens having weapons in their home. Not for hunting; not for sport; not even for self-defense against criminals. It is to preserve the ability of the people, if government becomes tyrannical, to overthrow it as set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

  3. Wally Schiller
    January 6th, 2013 at 06:00 | #3

    I note your reference to Australian pastors having some “chatter” in regard to your shooting hobby. Just to be accurate, there was a discussion and it centred rather on the mixture of your hobby with your blog and on the matter of the gun control, not the banning of guns. Your second sentence is bemusing! We ARE certainly able to enjoy shooting sports here in Australia – and, as I previously indicated, I have a rifle, albeit a very basic weapon, and I enjoy using it when I can find the time and the opportunity. So, you do not need to feel any sorrow for us at all! We rather feel sorry for you and your countrymen given the level of weapons deaths that you endure and to that end, we also remember those situations in our prayers.

    • January 6th, 2013 at 07:22 | #4

      Smile…my blog is my hobby and my hobby is my blog. I have other hobbies too, shooting being one of them, and so it all goes together.

  4. Marla
    January 6th, 2013 at 18:23 | #5


    More ‘weapons deaths’ are thwarted by armed citizens than are committed by criminals or the insane/disturbed.

    I wish you could know about the multitude of times weapons have saved lives, wherein legally licensed armed citizens thwarted the attempts of criminals to murder them. They saved their own lives, rather than asking the criminals to “wait a moment, while I call the police for help.” The law-abiding, lawfully licensed gun owner refuses to be a victim.

    When one lives in a society with a government which encourages ‘victimhood’ and dependence on the government, and gives preference to the rights of the criminal over those of the victim, law-abiding citizens really do have to fend for themselves. And “gun-free” zones are not an answer; their advertisements for the bad guys.

  5. January 7th, 2013 at 08:36 | #6

    Please don’t feel sorry for us Australians. In the 18 years prior to the shooting rampage at Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia in 1996 by Martin Bryant, who used a semi-automatic rifle, killing 35 people, there had been 13 mass shootings. Gun reform was introduced (by the conservative Howard government), and in the decade following there were none. Sadly, a number of people from the United States have informed me that there is much misinformation in the US regarding the Australian situation. This does not surprise me as from my observation the NRA’s approach does seem to have a fair bit in common with the approach of the sex industry, tobacco industry and big polluters who have deliberately sown confusion in order to protect their interests.

  6. Wally Schiller
    January 7th, 2013 at 15:50 | #7

    Your assessment may well be true, but that does not speak for “no gun control”. I have no doubt that it is perfectly possible that I can stop a criminal murdering me if I had a gun and could beat him to the draw. But, if that is the only option I am prepared to consider, then I have an extremely blinkered view. It seems to people outside of your country that the 2nd amendment is used as a justification for no gun control. When I hear your NRA spokesman say: “the only answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”, I am just staggered! How about the answer of more control to ensure the bad guy doesn’t get a gun. It seems to me that there is no want to make any effort to restrict availability in order to ensure that the wrong element does not have access to weaponry. I will say it again: I am not suggesting no guns – I am suggesting control.

  7. January 8th, 2013 at 19:30 | #8


    “How about the answer of more control to ensure the bad guy doesn’t get a gun. It seems to me that there is no want to make any effort to restrict availability in order to ensure that the wrong element does not have access to weaponry.”

    I feel the hairs on the back of my neck stand up whenever someone uses poorly defined terms like “bad guy” and “wrong element” to justify increases in government power. It reminds me of those who want to keep “bad” speech out of the public square. Before we can take seriously your call to try to keep guns away from the “wrong element”, you need to define exactly what that element is – and just what lengths you will go to in order to achieve it. The burden of proof is on you.

  8. January 8th, 2013 at 20:04 | #9


    It is not clear that gun control laws work to the degree you believe. Handguns were banned in England after a massage at Dunblane in 1997. Yet in the decade since gun violence increased 89%. Shouldn’t gun control laws decrease gun violence?


    Another major factor working against your view is the fact that gun laws in the US are not always enforced fairly. Example: NBC journalist David Gregory was told by DC police that he could not legally possess the high capacity magazine that he used on TV to taunt the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre. Yet he did it anyway, and so far has not been charged with a crime. Meanwhile, an American soldier named Augustine Kim has a criminal record because of draconian gun laws. Perhaps if Lt. Kim had the political pull Gregory has….


    When rich and powerful gun control advocates like NY Mayor Bloomberg and media mogul Rupert Murdock practice what they preach and disarm their own security guards I will take them seriously. Not before.

Comments are closed.