As I was considering what to write about this week, I came across a blaring statement of ignorance about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the second amendment.
To start, we'll just take a look at this specific excerpt: “This is a purpose-built weapon with no sporting applications to speak of.” I will include the entire "in context" explanation by the editor of Recoil Magazine below and I believe after reading this, you'll find it even more repugnant.
The need to justify a 'legitimate purpose' to own a firearm is absurd on it's face. The furtherance of that by means of a "sporting application" flies in the face of history and all logic.
We must dispel the lie that is referred to as "sporting purposes".
First and foremost, people have a Right to defend themselves. Period. There are no sporting purposes to self defense. The Right to defend yourself is unlimited. You have as much of a Right to defend yourself against 1 assailant as you do a dozen or one hundred.
Today the most effectual means of self defense are firearms. Tomorrow it may be a light saber or laser firing weapon. You have the Right to defend yourself. You may believe that Right comes from your belief in that The Creator has bestowed that upon you or perhaps you view it as a natural Earthly right or simply because of the second amendment to the Constitution.
Regardless of where and how you believe you have that Right it is something we all have.
As Samuel Adams said: “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.” Simply put, you have it and no man (or woman) has the authority to rightfully take that from you.
So we can clearly see, "sporting purposes" is a classic strawman argument. The enemies of Freedom, Liberty and self defense cannot argue with reason and logic, so they lie and they create false definitions and dichotomies to try and justify their indefensible positions to disarm us and leave us defenseless in the face of criminals, terrorists and tyrants.
While a classic revolver may be sufficient to stop a lone criminal, a standard (deemed 'high' by our enemies) capacity pistol may be better suited to dark alley confrontation with a few adversaries.
Likewise a riot or civil unrest situation such as the LA Riots (where shop owners used AK-47's to defend themselves) to the events in the south during hurricane Katrina where citizens used everything from bats to handguns and so called "assault" rifles to defend themselves and their neighborhoods.
You have the Right to decide how best to defend yourself. After all you don't have a Right to something if someone can put all sorts of absurd conditions or restrictions on it.
While not it's current position the United States Supreme Court has ruled in the past (when it held true to the Constitution and not to public opinion or politics) that a 'right restricted is a right denied'.
While H&K's MP7A1 may be better suited to repel a foreign military invasion or government turned tyrannical, that certainly doesn't make it something a "civvie" shouldn't own.
Quite the opposite in fact if you actually support the second amendment: "Necessary to the security of a free state". They certainly aren't talking about a deer rifle for hunting or handgun for self defense against a random thief or rapist.
Which ever firearm(s) you decide is (are) appropriate to protect and defend yourself, your family and your country is ultimately up to you. You have that RIGHT and when it comes to Rights, please refer to the founding fathers and how they felt about them.
As I mentioned earlier, here is the attempt by 'Recoil Magazine" to justify their position:
“Like we mentioned before, the MP7A1 is unavailable to civilians and for good reason. We all know that’s technology no civvies should ever get to lay their hands on. This is a purpose-built weapon with no sporting applications to speak of. It is made to put down scumbags, and that’s it. Mike Cabrera of Heckler & Koch Law Enforcement Sales and veteran law enforcement officer with SWAT unit experience points out that this is a gun that you do not want in the wrong, slimy hands. It comes with semi-automatic and full-auto firing modes only. Its overall size places it between a handgun and submachine gun. Its assault rifle capabilities and small size make this a serious weapon that should not be taken lightly.”
I would urge you, if you have a subscription to recoil magazine to cancel it. Don't support a company or organization that doesn't support your Rights. This isn't a random contributor, it is the editorial staff and by default the official position of Recoil Magazine. They also had time to backpedal or correct their original statement, instead they really let their position shine through.
The enemies of freedom are numerous enough, we don't need them within the gates as well.
-Prometheus
www.Facebook.com/GunReviews
©2012 -Permission is granted to reprint or repost this article provided it is used in full, with links intact and the content is not altered, including this section.
Editors Note: Prometheus is a member of the MAC family and has been a contributor to our efforts since the beginning.
UPDATE: 9/11/2012
RECOIL Magazine issued an apology two days ago. Today on 9/11 they "Liked" this comment made by one of their readers on the RECOIL Magazine Facebook page.
UPDATE: 9/13/2012
Jerry Tsai has stepped down. He released the following statement on the RECOIL website.
To start, we'll just take a look at this specific excerpt: “This is a purpose-built weapon with no sporting applications to speak of.” I will include the entire "in context" explanation by the editor of Recoil Magazine below and I believe after reading this, you'll find it even more repugnant.
The need to justify a 'legitimate purpose' to own a firearm is absurd on it's face. The furtherance of that by means of a "sporting application" flies in the face of history and all logic.
We must dispel the lie that is referred to as "sporting purposes".
First and foremost, people have a Right to defend themselves. Period. There are no sporting purposes to self defense. The Right to defend yourself is unlimited. You have as much of a Right to defend yourself against 1 assailant as you do a dozen or one hundred.
Today the most effectual means of self defense are firearms. Tomorrow it may be a light saber or laser firing weapon. You have the Right to defend yourself. You may believe that Right comes from your belief in that The Creator has bestowed that upon you or perhaps you view it as a natural Earthly right or simply because of the second amendment to the Constitution.
Regardless of where and how you believe you have that Right it is something we all have.
As Samuel Adams said: “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.” Simply put, you have it and no man (or woman) has the authority to rightfully take that from you.
So we can clearly see, "sporting purposes" is a classic strawman argument. The enemies of Freedom, Liberty and self defense cannot argue with reason and logic, so they lie and they create false definitions and dichotomies to try and justify their indefensible positions to disarm us and leave us defenseless in the face of criminals, terrorists and tyrants.
While a classic revolver may be sufficient to stop a lone criminal, a standard (deemed 'high' by our enemies) capacity pistol may be better suited to dark alley confrontation with a few adversaries.
Likewise a riot or civil unrest situation such as the LA Riots (where shop owners used AK-47's to defend themselves) to the events in the south during hurricane Katrina where citizens used everything from bats to handguns and so called "assault" rifles to defend themselves and their neighborhoods.
You have the Right to decide how best to defend yourself. After all you don't have a Right to something if someone can put all sorts of absurd conditions or restrictions on it.
While not it's current position the United States Supreme Court has ruled in the past (when it held true to the Constitution and not to public opinion or politics) that a 'right restricted is a right denied'.
While H&K's MP7A1 may be better suited to repel a foreign military invasion or government turned tyrannical, that certainly doesn't make it something a "civvie" shouldn't own.
Quite the opposite in fact if you actually support the second amendment: "Necessary to the security of a free state". They certainly aren't talking about a deer rifle for hunting or handgun for self defense against a random thief or rapist.
Which ever firearm(s) you decide is (are) appropriate to protect and defend yourself, your family and your country is ultimately up to you. You have that RIGHT and when it comes to Rights, please refer to the founding fathers and how they felt about them.
As I mentioned earlier, here is the attempt by 'Recoil Magazine" to justify their position:
| Image may be NSFW. Clik here to view.  |
| H&K MP7A1 |
I would urge you, if you have a subscription to recoil magazine to cancel it. Don't support a company or organization that doesn't support your Rights. This isn't a random contributor, it is the editorial staff and by default the official position of Recoil Magazine. They also had time to backpedal or correct their original statement, instead they really let their position shine through.
The enemies of freedom are numerous enough, we don't need them within the gates as well.
-Prometheus
www.Facebook.com/GunReviews
©2012 -Permission is granted to reprint or repost this article provided it is used in full, with links intact and the content is not altered, including this section.
Editors Note: Prometheus is a member of the MAC family and has been a contributor to our efforts since the beginning.
UPDATE: 9/11/2012
RECOIL Magazine issued an apology two days ago. Today on 9/11 they "Liked" this comment made by one of their readers on the RECOIL Magazine Facebook page.
It would seem that the anti-2nd Amendment views of their editor are not his views alone. Someone in charge of their Facebook page made mistake of pouring fuel on the fire by "liking" this comment which mirrors the opinion of the original article that got RECOIL into this mess to begin with. Apparently their apology was a ruse to try and silence the outcry by the firearms community.
To make matters even worse, when people started pointing this out to others on their Facebook page and tempers once against flared, RECOIL Magazine removed the Like in an apparent effort to conceal their views once again.
UPDATE: 9/12/2012
H&K has issued a statement that contradicts RECOIL Magazines version of events. H&K is denying they made the comments about the MP7A1 not being suitable for civilian ownership. It seems the only people left holding the bag here is RECOIL Magazine and their efforts to blame a sponsor (H&K) for their own anti-gun comments has backfired on them.
"Some readers have misinterpreted a recent feature story in RECOIL magazine as a reflection of HK policy. Heckler & Koch has a long presence in the US civilian market and throughout that time has been an ardent and passionate supporter of the Second Amendment and the American civilian shooter. This will always be the case. The contents, opinions, and statements expressed in that feature story are those of the writer, not Heckler and Koch’s. Additionally, the writer and RECOIL magazine have issued a clarification and apology for the ill-chosen words used in the story.
The HK MP7A1 4.6 mm Personal Defense Weapon mentioned in the story is a selective-fire product (capable of "full automatic” fire) and is currently restricted to military and law enforcement agencies by BATF. HK-USA has previously researched introducing similar commercial products, chambered in 4.6 mm, but it was determined that the final product would not have enough appeal or be legally feasible.
— Heckler & Koch USA"
UPDATE: 9/13/2012
Jerry Tsai has stepped down. He released the following statement on the RECOIL website.
It is with deep sorrow that I announce I am stepping down as editor of Recoil, effective immediately.
It is very difficult for me to walk away from something I helped create, something that I loved doing, and something I firmly believed would appeal to a fresh new generation of gun enthusiasts, but I accept that the comments in my story in the current issue have made my position as editor of Recoil untenable.
With that said, Recoil is bigger than any one person, and if my departure will allow Recoil to continue to grow and engage gun enthusiasts, then stepping down as editor is clearly the right thing for me to do.
I accept I made mistakes, and I apologize unreservedly for calling Recoil’s support for Second Amendment rights into question.
While I understand the passions aroused over this incident, the deeply hurtful words from some of my fellow gun enthusiasts have been painful to endure. I hope now we can all move on.
Finally, I would like to thank all those who have supported me over the past few days. These are the people who know me to be at heart a passionate gun enthusiast whose dream was to make something bold and new in firearms media.
Jerry Tsai