This letter is in response to Edward Doolin’s recent letter (Feb. 14, “Flaws in recent anti-gun argument”) claiming that there were flaws in a prior letter I wrote (Jan. 23 “Faulty reasoning in assault weapon letter”).
Mr. Doolin states that ARs and AKs “are not assault weapons . . .” However, the legal definition in the California law banning assault weapons and Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s proposed federal law banning assault weapons both list AR and AK rifles as weapons that are to be banned. What is the basis for Mr. Doolin’s claim that AR and AK rifles are not assault rifles?
Concerning the possibility that a foreign power would invade the U.S., Mr. Doolin gives two examples. He mentions the War of 1812. That was 200 years ago and at that time we did not have a strong army and navy. Britain, the invading country, at that time, had the strongest army and navy in the world. Now we are the country with by far the strongest military in the world. As for the second example, Japan’s bombing of Pearl Harbor, that was not an invasion. No Japanese soldiers landed in Hawaii.
Mr. Doolin’s statement – “The only thing that kept the Japanese from invading our mainland . . . was that we had guns.” – refers to a supposed quote by Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto that the leading Pearl Harbor historian, Donald Goldstein, has called “bogus,” since he could not find a basis for that quote in his vast research.
Mr. Doolin refers to the battle of Athens 1946 as an example of an internal tyrannical government being defeated by armed citizens. That involved a wealthy family taking over a county in Tennessee. When Mr. Doolin refers to an internal tyrannical government, he is not referring to the county level. He is referring to the federal level and he thinks we need assault rifles to fight against President Barack Obama establishing a left-wing dictatorship.
The chances of President Obama or any other president establishing a dictatorship in this country are zero; for reasons I explained in my prior letter.