I am inspired by my ramblings in the rifle camo thread, to share a piece that I wrote, which was published in the most recent edition of my county's newspaper, and which I intend to share with my senators. I hope it might prompt a worthwhile discussion...

Franklin County Citizen Leader “Your View” submission

In the wake of tragedies, our Nation's crucial Second Amendment to it's Constitution is often criticized; some would even go so far as to have it reconsidered. Without a proper understanding of this foundational American idea, it seems like an easy target, in the mania induced by the contemporary wave of mass violence in our communities.

To truly understand the Second Amendment is to acknowledge that our right to keep and bear arms guarantees all our other freedoms, and grants us a unique near immunity to foreign invasion. Without the Second Amendment, our liberty might be denied us at the stroke of a federal pen. Our government is intended to be one of, by, and for the people; a people capable of resistance guarantees that remains the case. So long as Americans are armed the way our Constitution dictates, it would be utter folly for a hostile force to invade. Some would have us fret about other nations military might and intent, on the global scale, but we need not really worry because, as Americans, we have the ability to squash any foolish attempt to harm our great Nation. The Second Amendment isn't about self defense, as in defending yourself from a crook; nor is it about preserving the ability to hunt wild game; those are secondary and tertiary effects, but not the core intent. It's about self defense as a Nation; defending ourselves from tyranny and evil from within and without.

With an understanding of our Second Amendment established, we would do well to specifically address the fact that this is a guaranteed right of individual Americans. If membership in a government sanctioned militia is required for access to arms, that really defeats the purpose of the Amendment altogether. The constitutionally intended and guaranteed access to arms of the American people is accompanied by a certain level of risk. The founding fathers deemed the risk worth the reward. It still is.

There is poison coursing through the veins of our culture, here in contemporary America. We need to grit our teeth and get to the root of the problem. Ask not why a deranged man was able to get a gun; ask why he was deranged. We ought to want to know what drives someone to such an anti-God, anti-American act as murdering a classroom of children. There are forces who would love for us to neuter ourselves, in our effort to “help” ourselves, and we ought to be wise enough to see that.

Make no mistake: America is the city on the hill; we will get through these troubled times, and emerge closer to God and stronger as a nation. We should not look to emulate Europe, in our efforts to grow and improve; to do that would be to give up what makes us who we are, as Americans. We should not look to creating more laws or restrictions, when actually less is more. Authoritarian dictation is not what's needed, nor is it what anyone wants; an inspired change from within Americans is what's needed. If we were all to more closely adhere to God's law, we would not need any earthly laws at all. The seemingly dichotomous combination of God and guns is often an easy target for confused anti-Americans. A Second Amendment advocate isn't chomping at the bit to kill in the name of America and/or God; he doesn't fancy himself some kind of contemporary crusader. Life is God's most precious gift to us, and it should be cherished and protected; sometimes that can mean taking it, and the Second guarantees that defensive ability.

If we interpret our Nation as an entity, with a singular life all it's own - a life with huge, God-given potential - we can start to see that it deserves protection on that macro scale. To someone who would have America follow in the footsteps of the “rest of the world's leading nations”, I say go ahead and move to one of them. Why put yourself through all the headache and hard work of ruining this country, when you can just go to one that's already ruined? Maybe it's because we all know that there is something special about America; we'll work together to root out the evil trying to eat away at it.

For those who really feel that they need to be more governed, California is a nice place; you can even still call yourself an American, if you live there. If California doesn't offer enough structure for you, we share a northern border with a country that will govern you even “better”. You don't really have to go far, to get the firmer hand you're after. I hope that you opt to stay in our little north Georgia American oasis though, so long as you understand and appreciate what makes it great. The Second Amendment, and our individual rights it guarantees, is a cornerstone of America; alter or remove it, and we fall.

-Wilfred Albright

The relevant back-and-forth in the rifle camo thread that prompted this thread can be found below...

Fritz said:
Camo often consists of various hues of green, brown, and gray in an effort to hide the person/equipment in natural areas. Sometimes it works well, and as noted by Sigfreund, sometimes not so much. The various militaries have camo research capabilities well beyond civilians, sometimes knowing exactly where they are going, and yet they don't always nail it.

In my neck of the woods, the traditional camo might work well in forests and prairie/foothills transitions areas. Probably won't do squat in winter's snowy areas, eastern prairies after the summer brownout occurs, or the red-rock desert regions of the Colorado River basin. Maybe not so hot in urban areas, too. Urban areas where there might be a fair share of black, shiny metal things, gray, tan, blue, yellow, orange, red, green, or whatever. What's the best urban camo color combination -- for both equipment and clothing? And does one wear the same urban camo clothing to church, to the office, to Taco Bell, to a gas station....?

When we look at a person's need for self defense or to stop a threat, at least so far around here it's not occurring at a hiking trail head in the Collegiate Peaks. It's not in the ski lift lines at Vail. It's not while photographing elk in Estes Park. Think convenience stores, gas stations, big box retailers, traffic lights in rougher parts of town, churches, schools, and maybe even in your own neighborhood. Maybe a camo'd gun helps to stop a threat at the 7-Eleven, but more likely it's a person's ability to draw from concealment and place rounds on target in a quick and decisive manner.

If one buys into Red Dawn and Call of Duty, then a woodland camo (or whatever) AR15 is great. I'll pass, even though I'm in natural lands for a full day almost every week. Yeah, I have rifles with camo stocks, have some camo-accented clothing, have some rifle accessories in camo -- because I like the way some items look in camo. But I see no reason to camo coat stainless barrels, because they're consumable items in my book. I'll keep my black rifles black.

IMO put as much camo or as little camo as you want on firearms. If you like it, do it. If it gives you warm fuzzies, rattle can away. But IMO camo's practical benefits to civilians are pretty much nil.

I replied:

quote:

but more likely it's a person's ability to draw from concealment and place rounds on target in a quick and decisive manner.

No argument there; that's not what this thread is about.

quote:

But I see no reason to camo coat stainless barrels, because they're consumable items in my book.

You often remind us that you're the guy who regularly shoots out barrels. Why do you shoot your AR15s so much, fritz? I know it's not to get better at defending yourself at the 7-Eleven, because that's not the piece you'd be carrying, drawing and deploying in a "quick and decisive manner". Do you shoot out barrels for fun, or do you shoot out barrels because you care about becoming more effective (lethal) with your AR15s?

quote:

But IMO camo's practical benefits to civilians are pretty much nil.

Are you LE? Military? Why would you impose limits on the "practical benefits" of militaristic weapon aspects to citizens?

quote:

I'll keep my black rifles black.

Was this remark sarcasm?: "This is exactly why I break up this AR's profile with a stainless barrel and a nickel finish receiver. Topped off with a coyote can cover, of course." You seemed as though you were a civilian caring about camouflage, in that post.

The guy that shoots tens of thousands of rounds is doing it for a reason. What is your reason? If it's not because you want to be more lethal with your AR15, for your job, or because that's how you interpret the 2nd Amendment, as a citizen, then it must just be for fun or "pretend". If it's not for pretend, camouflage is certainly relevant. If it is for pretend, then why not go the whole nine, and paint your rifle? Hell, you're already spending thousands and thousands on the ammo, to facilitate your tactical training that, in your opinion, has no practical benefit to civilians. Help me understand.

I then followed-up...
It is not uncommon for me to share SIGforum discussions with my wife. She's a damn smart woman, and I value her input. Her input on my preceding post was that I sounded a little bit like an argumentative, confrontational asshole. I didn't feel that way, when I wrote it, so I clearly didn't write it well. My apologies to fritz, and other thread participants.
I am going to add a brief part two, to my tangent, to clarify my attitude. I know we avoid getting into political discussions where they don't belong, but it'll be brief, and this is the most relevant place for it.
Fritz ruffled my patriotic feathers. I believe it's extremely important that we're honest with ourselves, each other, and with those who would oppose us, when considering our rights as protected by the Second Amendment. There are very practical and very important benefits(reasons) to camouflage a rifle, as a civilian(citizen). When you boil it down, the reason a citizen would camouflage his rifle is the same reason he ought to have unlimited access to military rifles; is the same reason the 2nd exists at all. We would do well to avoid imposing limitations on ourselves. The implications, IMO, of saying a civilian has nothing to gain by camouflaging his weapon, are bigger than many may realize, at a glance. As fritz said, if you want to camo it: cool; if you don't: whatever. I understand folks may opt to avoid the practice, as it affects resale value of what may be potential investment firearms. Maybe they adopt the attitude that they'll do it if/when it becomes more immediately relevant. Whatever your reason is for painting, or for not painting, don't convince yourself, or others that it doesn't have a place in our practices as gun owning Americans. Thanks for listening. I'll create another thread, in the gun control forum, where this conversation can continue, if anyone cares to discuss the matter further. Again, my apologies to fritz, who's input I appreciate, and to other forum members, for derailing a thread that was likely meant to be cool pictures of camo guns.
*Don't misinterpret this as a fiery passion for spray painting rifles. That's not the point.

Rey HRH replied:

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Thanks for listening. I'll create another thread, in the gun control forum, where this conversation can continue, if anyone cares to discuss the matter further.

I look forward to that thread. This thread wasn't primarily to get pics of spray painted guns although that would be nice. But whether it really is a thing.

Over the years, I've been mentally considering the scenario you've described. I don't consider myself a wild-eyed lunatic but for decades before Covid came, I was prepared with N-95 masks, sanitizing wipes, nitrile gloves, and emergency toilet paper among other things. It paid off especially when I saw sanitizing wipes start selling for 40 cents a wipe instead of 0.4 cents a wipe when I bought them. Back to your scenario, I've considered my contribution to be prolonging my usefulness as cannon fodder for as much as I can.

These are previous threads, that are in a similar vein:
https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...1105858/m/6690062094
https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...1105858/m/3190072394
A lot of the discussion centers around being honest with ourselves about our intent, and honest with each other about why we opt into, or out of, certain preparedness mindsets.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Franklin County Citizen Leader “Your View” submission
{snip}

Nicely done, sir!

I think things are bound to come to a head in this country, sooner more than later as spurred by the Bruen decision.

I don't think the people driving the anti-2A movement needs to be educated on what the 2A is about. I think they know what it's about and they're against it because having an armed population is an obstacle to their ultimate goal: you will own nothing and you will be happy.

And, I'm not saying your letter wasn't helpful; it really is helpful for those who goes along because they think guns are "dangerous" in the hands of the average citizen. They've had this pounded into them and constantly reinforced.

I say the Bruen decision spurs things coming to a head because the decision clearly enshrines the primacy of the 2nd amendment over any supposed interest the government may have for the general welfare. I wait with anticipation what this means for pistol braces, suppressors, and even SBRs. For people in the non-free states, I'm sure they're waiting for what it means for magazine capacity restrictions, approved handgun roster, long gun restrictions, etc.

Because the other side isn't stupid, they recognize this as shit just got real and, if they give an inch, it's a quick slippery slope to losing a good amount of the power they've amassed.

quote:

I don't think the people driving the anti-2A movement needs to be educated on what the 2A is about.

And, I'm not saying your letter wasn't helpful; it really is helpful for those who goes along because they think guns are "dangerous" in the hands of the average citizen. They've had this pounded into them and constantly reinforced.

I agree. The letter is for the people, more than it's for the powers. It's original intent was to be shared in the local paper; sending it to senators was an afterthought. Also, I like to think that the staffer on the receiving end, in the senator's office, may be still within it's sphere of influence.