You make some interesting points. As with many arguing for infringement of the 2nd Amendment, you express the terms “assault rifle”, assault weapon”, “assault style rifle”, “military style features”. So, I’ll ask. What style is “assault”? What style of features make them “military”? What’s wrong with an “assault style” or “military style”?
“These are the guns involved in many high profile mass shootings…”
How many is ‘many’? What is your data source?
“Many law enforcement leaders, including big city chiefs and statewide organizations…”
Are absolute political hacks and know nothing about firearms or the laws they are pushing.
“They have also raised alarms about conversion devices and “switches” that effectively turn common pistols and rifles into illegal machine guns…”
“illegal machine guns” So we need more laws to make it more illegal?
“The point was that the Second Amendment is not absolute.”
No, the point is, you claimed that weapons that are perfectly legal to own, are illegal. And you did that after stating your bona fides as a person experienced in weapons and law.
“The real question is where to draw that line today, especially as new technologies and accessories blur the line between ordinary semi automatic firearms and weapons that can fire at near automatic rates.”
The rate of fire is irrelevant. If a person is dexterous enough, they can make a revolver, pistol, or semi-auto rifle fire well into the rate of 4-500 rounds per minute. It’s not unusual.
“…society has long drawn lines on what weapons are appropriate for civilian use.”
But look at who is determining that now: people who have zero experience or knowledge of firearms and are willing to believe anything from a “study” done by a charlatan who is paid for his agenda driven conclusions. Case in point: yearly instances of defensive gun uses (DGU) in the US, over a given time? 6 studies were used to “prove” that DGU’s were a rare occurrence. They were touted as the best – until someone pointed out that their data was bogus and only taken from news media reports. All 6 used the same method for their limited data. If it wasn’t published in the news, it didn’t happen. Their numbers were in the hundreds, instead of the yearly .5 to 2 million determined by the Crime Prevention Research Center and a study commissioned by Pres. Obama that found over 300,000/year (that study got buried quick).
“I believe in the right to self defense, hunting, and sport shooting with appropriate firearms.”
And who will determine what is appropriate? The clueless politicians? You?
What is appropriate for you might not be appropriate for a 20 year old woman or a 70 year old man with arthritis.
What you are really looking for is crime control and there are thousands of laws controlling that, IF the laws are enforced. Currently, they are not. All of the laws proposed by the Democrats in Richmond are promised to prevent crime, but they don’t and won’t. When they fail, the demand will be for more gun control laws and more when those fail. It’s not about crime control, it’s about banning all guns and gutting the 2nd Amendment. You just fail to see that it's death by a thousand cuts.
"Still, I can see no true reason for Americans to own assault rifles. We just don’t need them!"
The next time Donnie decides to opine on weapons, perhaps he should consult someone who actually knows what they are and what the laws are. Assault Rifles are select fire rifles capable of semi -and- full automatic fire, are classified as 'machine guns' and are not for sale to anyone that does not have a special federal license that takes many months to aquire.
"And it is illegal to own a cannon or a tank or an atom bomb or even a sawed-off shotgun. Those are banned by law and those laws are enforced."
Again, Donnie's ignorance of the law is rather glaring. Other than the atom bomb, it is perfectly legal to own a cannon, tank, or even a sawed-off shotgun. The sawed-off shotgun requires a special permit from the ATF, as may a cannon, but is nothing unusual, as are short-barreled rifles and supressors.
When FUDDs like Donnie start publishing articles and giving advice on weapons and the laws controlling them, it is best that they have the article reviewed by someone competent. His ignorance and that of people who throw in the word "assault" are after political points for their agenda. They will typically boast of supporting the Second Amendement, then add in the word "BUT", where they show their true colors, as they list the infringments on the 2nd Amendement that they consider just needful for any number of reasons, to limit constitutional rights.
As someone who has worn both a uniform and a holster, I read Donnie Johnston’s column with great interest. I served in the U.S. Army in Vietnam, Kuwait, and Bosnia, and I have owned guns my entire adult life. As a teenager I was proud to be an NRA member and to earn multiple marksmanship patches that I wore on my jacket. Over time, my interests changed and so did the NRA, and I have not been a member since the early 1960s.
I also come from a family of law enforcement officers in police departments and sheriffs’ offices, so I see the gun issue through several lenses at once. I support the Second Amendment, but as a protection for responsible individuals – not as an “any gun, any time, anywhere” license. Assault‑style rifles are designed for war and mass killing, not for home defense or hunting. National polling consistently shows that most Americans, including many gun owners, support measures like universal background checks, and slim majorities now back an assault‑weapons ban or stricter limits on these rifles.
From that perspective, Mr. Johnston’s concerns about sheriffs publicly announcing what laws they will and will not enforce are well‑founded. No one in law enforcement gets to take an oath and then pick and choose which laws to honor. Voters should take careful note of any sheriff who suggests otherwise and weigh that record seriously when deciding on his or her re‑election.
"I support the Second Amendment, but..." Yep. There it is the "but". Phil seems to believe (as so many do) that our right to keep and bear arms is granted by a piece of parchment. The 2nd Amendment is a limitation on the government, not the People; just as the rest of the Bill of Rights limits the government, not the People. It grants us no rights, it protects them.
"Assault‑style rifles are designed for war and mass killing, not for home defense or hunting."
Perhaps Phil can name one country that uses the AR15 or semi-auto AK47 in it's military? Designed for war? Then why aren't they used by militaries? However, they are used in America, by the Millions and the main uses are home defense, hunting and target shooting!
" National polling consistently shows that most Americans, including many gun owners, support measures like universal background checks, and slim majorities now back an assault‑weapons ban or stricter limits on these rifles."
Polling depends on who you ask and what the questions are. The 2nd Amendment's purpose is to protect the right to keep and bear arms from the government and it includes if polling says a majority backs a ban or limits on ANY arms! I would think with Phil's bona fides that he would understand that, but I guess he got indoctrinated to the propaganda of the gun ban crowd. All that time in the military and as a cop, defending the Constitution and here he is trying to gut the very provision that ultimately protects it and the People's ability to say "NO".
Thanks for the thoughtful pushback — you raise some fair technical points that deserve a response.
You’re right that the precise term “assault rifle” refers to select‑fire weapons that are heavily regulated under federal machine‑gun laws. My point — and Donnie’s — was about the broader category of semi‑automatic rifles with military‑style features (what many call “assault‑style” rifles) that are widely available to civilians. These are the guns involved in many high‑profile mass shootings, and that’s why they’re the focus of current debate. Many law‑enforcement leaders, including big‑city chiefs and statewide organizations, have called for tighter controls on these rifles and on the high‑capacity magazines that make active‑shooter events so deadly, even when they don’t all agree on a full ban. They have also raised alarms about conversion devices and “switches” that effectively turn common pistols and rifles into illegal machine guns, creating situations that are extremely dangerous for both officers and civilians.
On the other weapons, you’re also correct that tanks, cannons, and NFA items like short‑barreled shotguns are legal for civilians with ATF approval and tax stamps. Those weapons sit in a very narrow, heavily regulated niche: each item has to be individually registered, taxed, and approved after extensive background checks, and they represent a tiny fraction of privately owned firearms. You don’t just pick up a registered machine gun or a tank gun for routine home defense or deer season. The point was that the Second Amendment is not absolute, and society has long drawn lines on what weapons are appropriate for civilian use. The real question is where to draw that line today, especially as new technologies and accessories blur the line between ordinary semi‑automatic firearms and weapons that can fire at near‑automatic rates.
I’m not here to “gut” the Second Amendment, which I defended in uniform from Vietnam through Bosnia. I believe in the right to self‑defense, hunting, and sport shooting with appropriate firearms. But I also believe we can have that conversation without pretending that public‑safety concerns are irrelevant. Polling over the past decade has consistently shown very broad support for universal background checks and solid majority support for tighter restrictions on these semi‑automatic, assault‑style rifles — and that democratic input matters alongside constitutional principle.
And that’s why I thank Donnie Johnston for putting this issue out there for exactly this kind of democratic debate. When sheriffs publicly say they won’t enforce laws they disagree with, it’s not just about guns — it’s about the rule of law. Voters will judge that at the ballot box. Let’s keep the conversation civil and grounded in facts. Have a great day.
You make some interesting points. As with many arguing for infringement of the 2nd Amendment, you express the terms “assault rifle”, assault weapon”, “assault style rifle”, “military style features”. So, I’ll ask. What style is “assault”? What style of features make them “military”? What’s wrong with an “assault style” or “military style”?
“These are the guns involved in many high profile mass shootings…”
How many is ‘many’? What is your data source?
“Many law enforcement leaders, including big city chiefs and statewide organizations…”
Are absolute political hacks and know nothing about firearms or the laws they are pushing.
“They have also raised alarms about conversion devices and “switches” that effectively turn common pistols and rifles into illegal machine guns…”
“illegal machine guns” So we need more laws to make it more illegal?
“The point was that the Second Amendment is not absolute.”
No, the point is, you claimed that weapons that are perfectly legal to own, are illegal. And you did that after stating your bona fides as a person experienced in weapons and law.
“The real question is where to draw that line today, especially as new technologies and accessories blur the line between ordinary semi automatic firearms and weapons that can fire at near automatic rates.”
The rate of fire is irrelevant. If a person is dexterous enough, they can make a revolver, pistol, or semi-auto rifle fire well into the rate of 4-500 rounds per minute. It’s not unusual.
“…society has long drawn lines on what weapons are appropriate for civilian use.”
But look at who is determining that now: people who have zero experience or knowledge of firearms and are willing to believe anything from a “study” done by a charlatan who is paid for his agenda driven conclusions. Case in point: yearly instances of defensive gun uses (DGU) in the US, over a given time? 6 studies were used to “prove” that DGU’s were a rare occurrence. They were touted as the best – until someone pointed out that their data was bogus and only taken from news media reports. All 6 used the same method for their limited data. If it wasn’t published in the news, it didn’t happen. Their numbers were in the hundreds, instead of the yearly .5 to 2 million determined by the Crime Prevention Research Center and a study commissioned by Pres. Obama that found over 300,000/year (that study got buried quick).
“I believe in the right to self defense, hunting, and sport shooting with appropriate firearms.”
And who will determine what is appropriate? The clueless politicians? You?
What is appropriate for you might not be appropriate for a 20 year old woman or a 70 year old man with arthritis.
What you are really looking for is crime control and there are thousands of laws controlling that, IF the laws are enforced. Currently, they are not. All of the laws proposed by the Democrats in Richmond are promised to prevent crime, but they don’t and won’t. When they fail, the demand will be for more gun control laws and more when those fail. It’s not about crime control, it’s about banning all guns and gutting the 2nd Amendment. You just fail to see that it's death by a thousand cuts.
"Still, I can see no true reason for Americans to own assault rifles. We just don’t need them!"
The next time Donnie decides to opine on weapons, perhaps he should consult someone who actually knows what they are and what the laws are. Assault Rifles are select fire rifles capable of semi -and- full automatic fire, are classified as 'machine guns' and are not for sale to anyone that does not have a special federal license that takes many months to aquire.
"And it is illegal to own a cannon or a tank or an atom bomb or even a sawed-off shotgun. Those are banned by law and those laws are enforced."
Again, Donnie's ignorance of the law is rather glaring. Other than the atom bomb, it is perfectly legal to own a cannon, tank, or even a sawed-off shotgun. The sawed-off shotgun requires a special permit from the ATF, as may a cannon, but is nothing unusual, as are short-barreled rifles and supressors.
When FUDDs like Donnie start publishing articles and giving advice on weapons and the laws controlling them, it is best that they have the article reviewed by someone competent. His ignorance and that of people who throw in the word "assault" are after political points for their agenda. They will typically boast of supporting the Second Amendement, then add in the word "BUT", where they show their true colors, as they list the infringments on the 2nd Amendement that they consider just needful for any number of reasons, to limit constitutional rights.
As someone who has worn both a uniform and a holster, I read Donnie Johnston’s column with great interest. I served in the U.S. Army in Vietnam, Kuwait, and Bosnia, and I have owned guns my entire adult life. As a teenager I was proud to be an NRA member and to earn multiple marksmanship patches that I wore on my jacket. Over time, my interests changed and so did the NRA, and I have not been a member since the early 1960s.
I also come from a family of law enforcement officers in police departments and sheriffs’ offices, so I see the gun issue through several lenses at once. I support the Second Amendment, but as a protection for responsible individuals – not as an “any gun, any time, anywhere” license. Assault‑style rifles are designed for war and mass killing, not for home defense or hunting. National polling consistently shows that most Americans, including many gun owners, support measures like universal background checks, and slim majorities now back an assault‑weapons ban or stricter limits on these rifles.
From that perspective, Mr. Johnston’s concerns about sheriffs publicly announcing what laws they will and will not enforce are well‑founded. No one in law enforcement gets to take an oath and then pick and choose which laws to honor. Voters should take careful note of any sheriff who suggests otherwise and weigh that record seriously when deciding on his or her re‑election.
"I support the Second Amendment, but..." Yep. There it is the "but". Phil seems to believe (as so many do) that our right to keep and bear arms is granted by a piece of parchment. The 2nd Amendment is a limitation on the government, not the People; just as the rest of the Bill of Rights limits the government, not the People. It grants us no rights, it protects them.
"Assault‑style rifles are designed for war and mass killing, not for home defense or hunting."
Perhaps Phil can name one country that uses the AR15 or semi-auto AK47 in it's military? Designed for war? Then why aren't they used by militaries? However, they are used in America, by the Millions and the main uses are home defense, hunting and target shooting!
" National polling consistently shows that most Americans, including many gun owners, support measures like universal background checks, and slim majorities now back an assault‑weapons ban or stricter limits on these rifles."
Polling depends on who you ask and what the questions are. The 2nd Amendment's purpose is to protect the right to keep and bear arms from the government and it includes if polling says a majority backs a ban or limits on ANY arms! I would think with Phil's bona fides that he would understand that, but I guess he got indoctrinated to the propaganda of the gun ban crowd. All that time in the military and as a cop, defending the Constitution and here he is trying to gut the very provision that ultimately protects it and the People's ability to say "NO".
Thanks for the thoughtful pushback — you raise some fair technical points that deserve a response.
You’re right that the precise term “assault rifle” refers to select‑fire weapons that are heavily regulated under federal machine‑gun laws. My point — and Donnie’s — was about the broader category of semi‑automatic rifles with military‑style features (what many call “assault‑style” rifles) that are widely available to civilians. These are the guns involved in many high‑profile mass shootings, and that’s why they’re the focus of current debate. Many law‑enforcement leaders, including big‑city chiefs and statewide organizations, have called for tighter controls on these rifles and on the high‑capacity magazines that make active‑shooter events so deadly, even when they don’t all agree on a full ban. They have also raised alarms about conversion devices and “switches” that effectively turn common pistols and rifles into illegal machine guns, creating situations that are extremely dangerous for both officers and civilians.
On the other weapons, you’re also correct that tanks, cannons, and NFA items like short‑barreled shotguns are legal for civilians with ATF approval and tax stamps. Those weapons sit in a very narrow, heavily regulated niche: each item has to be individually registered, taxed, and approved after extensive background checks, and they represent a tiny fraction of privately owned firearms. You don’t just pick up a registered machine gun or a tank gun for routine home defense or deer season. The point was that the Second Amendment is not absolute, and society has long drawn lines on what weapons are appropriate for civilian use. The real question is where to draw that line today, especially as new technologies and accessories blur the line between ordinary semi‑automatic firearms and weapons that can fire at near‑automatic rates.
I’m not here to “gut” the Second Amendment, which I defended in uniform from Vietnam through Bosnia. I believe in the right to self‑defense, hunting, and sport shooting with appropriate firearms. But I also believe we can have that conversation without pretending that public‑safety concerns are irrelevant. Polling over the past decade has consistently shown very broad support for universal background checks and solid majority support for tighter restrictions on these semi‑automatic, assault‑style rifles — and that democratic input matters alongside constitutional principle.
And that’s why I thank Donnie Johnston for putting this issue out there for exactly this kind of democratic debate. When sheriffs publicly say they won’t enforce laws they disagree with, it’s not just about guns — it’s about the rule of law. Voters will judge that at the ballot box. Let’s keep the conversation civil and grounded in facts. Have a great day.
Trump pardoned Sheriff Jenkins.
Indeed he did. He also pardoned all Jan. 6 rioters, even those who pleaded guilty to their crimes. Do you feel safer? I don't.