Printer Friendly



In your review of the Vektor CP1 pistol that appeared in the November 1999 issue of Handguns, the owner's manual introductory statement (that the pistol was developed as a contingency carry gun with an expected lifespan of approximately 6,000 rounds that with regular care and maintenance would probably go as high as 10,000 rounds) was correctly quoted.

When the manual was initially written for the United States market, an error occurred in the translation of this part of the manual. This statement is incorrect. Although the pistol may need service of minor replacement such as recoil springs that wear out, the pistol can be relied upon for a normal life expectancy.

Any owner of a CP1 can have his old manual replaced with the corrected information by calling Vektor USA at 1-888-740-0837.

Christine Danforth,

Vice president of Marketing,

Vektor USA


I note with quite some amazement the ease with which a reputable manufacturer of a quality legal product cuts a deal with the most corrupt administration in the history of the republic.

Smith & Wesson may have submitted to extortion to obtain shortterm survival. However, I have learned that within the first week following their suicide, they had millions in orders cancelled.

The internet sites are exploding with outrage. Folks, this is wasted effort unless you are going to get involved. We need to unify. Hopefully, this event is the catalyst.

Since we all own more guns than we really need--I have at least two for every occasion--here is how to win: Stifle the urge to buy that next gun at the upcoming gun show. You can wait a few more months. Take that money earmarked for that gun and send it to George W Bush for his campaign. Do you want power? Do the math. Twenty thousand gun owners sending $500 apiece to George W. Bush is megabucks. Get the wife to send the price of hers, too. Now double it. This is real clout, or you can just sir on your butt and let Al Gore and a liberal Congress appoint and confirm the next four Supreme Court justices.

This election is about the survival of the republic. You need this more than you need another gun. Mark your check RFO (Responsible Firearms Owner), so they will know who gets the credit.

Sydney Glyck

Venice, Florida


The year 2000 election will be a turning point in this country one way or another. We have two choices. If the liberal left of Al Gore wins, with a possible retaking of Congress by the Democrats, then the Second Amendment stands a chance of being erased forever. Our next president will appoint the next four U.S. Supreme Court judges, thereby tipping the scales one way or another.

If George W. Bush wins, then even if we lose Congress we have someone who can veto legislation proposed by the liberal Democrats. What gun owners, all gun owners, must do is simple: Vote for whoever becomes the Republican candidate. Big deal if you don't like George W. Bush. Vote for whoever is pro-gun and stands the chance to beat the anti-gun candidate. Think of the worst anti-gun legislation you can imagine, and then think ahead to November. Do not stay away from the ballot box. Do not let them vote themselves into Washington, and at the same time vote away the Second Amendment. Mark my words: If Gore wins in November, it won't be handguns or assault rifles that are banned. It will be all guns for all of us. Then we will have replaced our freedom with their mercy.

David J. LaPell,

Queensbury, New York


After reading letter after letter, and article after article, written by some American gun-owner bemoaning the day that "some law" forces us to "give up" our guns, I am convinced that we have already lost the fight.

Even though the U.S. Constitution was adopted 9/17/1787, it was not ratified by the required nine states until 6/21/1778. So concerned about possible "abuse of powers" were several of the 13 states, that "at the time of their adopting the. Constitution" these states promised to withhold ratification unless an agreement to add "further declaratory and restrictive clauses" was reached. It was agreed that these clauses would be adopted at the next Congress. It was only after these clauses were adopted, on 3/4/1789, that the 12th and 13th states ratified the Constitution.

My point? Simple. These 10 articles, referred to as amendments, did not "give" us rights but instead "recognized" that certain rights were "inherent or unalienable" and required "protection" from potential government "misconstruction or abuse." The "Bill of Rights" is a list of "restrictions upon government" required to protect the rights "endowed by our creator," and no law passed by Congress has any "authority" to change these restrictions. The only reason the "anti-gun" crowd has any success in passing "unconstitutional gun laws" is because "the people" comply, like sheep, with each new law.

If Congress passed a law tomorrow requiring that we surrender all semiautomatic and pump firearms, I am afraid that 90 percent of American gun-owners would comply; and in doing so, they would "grant the authority" to government to strip them of their freedom. I wonder what this group would do if Congress passed a law requiring that all "firstborn" males be turned over to the government? On second thought, if our past willingness to cower to illegitimate laws is any example, I don't want to know.

Cliff Nutting,

Washougal, Washington


As a former resident of Maryland, I appalud the piece written by Kerby C. Smith ("Maryland-The First Police State," April 2000). Governor Glendening prides himself on his "awards" from HCI and other gun control groups. In a speech he made to Towson State's graduating class of 1999, much was said of how recognized he was in the gun control social elite. I walked out of the rest of his speech.

Governor Glendening is a former college professor with idealistic views of the world that do not stand up to real-world tests. His first election was investigated by no less than the FBI for tampering, and he wants very much for Maryland to be in the same socialist liberal class with Massachusetts and California. So far, the voters of Maryland are letting him.

Maryland is supported by the Federal government in many ways, and many people there see the government as the source of life. Perhaps this is why the state government has almost no trouble getting anti-gun, taxes and many other Orwellian laws passed that would not be tolerated in many of the other states.

R. Dean Campbell

Bryan, Texas

via email


The article at the back of the April issue concerning Maryland's attorney general is unnerving. The attorney general is not the problem; he is a symptom. The problem is a combination of gutlessness on the part of the sleeping citizenry of Maryland, generations of government-subsidized oxygen thieves and a rise in effeminate men.

Citizenship is work. Tyranny does not live in history books alone, and freedom comes with a price.

The attorney general wants to license the gun owners of Maryland. One does not need a license to exercise a right. If we go gutless and register our weapons, we'll be with England, Canada, Australia and other neo-socialist authoritarian governments.

Tom Flood,

via email


What a great article by Dr. Stolinsky--"Stopping Power" (Handguns, April 2000). Lab data and/or experiments can never refute actual street data. To put it another way for everyone that refutes Marshall and Sanow data: If you had cancer, would you bet your life on a drug that had good results in the lab, or would you prefer one that had actually worked on several hundred patients? Get my point?

Beny Remedios,

via email


Having read Kerby Smith's editorial in the "On Target" section of the February 2000 issue, I am somewhat disturbed. Smith's article on 1911 values makes it a little difficult to determine which side of the Second Amendment debate he takes. In his bashing of the Communist Chinese government (perfectly justified, I might add), he insinuated that the availability of affordably-priced SKS and AK-47 rifles was the primary reason our country is now plagued by ridiculous "assault weapon" laws. In his defense, Mr. Smith did touch on the gun grabbers' use of the mainstream media to exploit the average American's ignorance of firearms and personal liberty, but in summary, his article gave myself and others the impression that he held Norinco personally responsible for the recent theft of our Second Amendment rights.

This type of attitude smacks of the same style of propaganda tactics used by California Senator Barbara Boxer and HCI Chair Sarah Brady in their unjustified attacks upon manufacturers of affordable, self-defense handguns. Not everyone can afford to spend $1,000 or more on a firearm. Does it mean that these people are undeserving of the tools needed for self-defense? Did the Founding Fathers intend for the Bill of Rights to protect only the wealthy? I think not.

The blame for the loss of our gun rights sits best on our own shoulders: those of us who have sold a firearm to someone who we knew lacked the common sense and respect for life necessary to exercise responsible gun ownership. Those who can spend $100 on a pair of sneakers, but won't part with $35 to renew an NRA membership. We, who can spend hours each day perched in front of the television but can't set aside 15 minutes a month to write our elected officials. We, who can find the time and money to plan a trip to Disneyland, while a hillside of fallen heroes in Arlington sits, forgotten by most of us. If we truly cared about liberty, parents would work tirelessly to make their children understand just how big a sacrifice our forefathers made for freedom. We are, without a doubt, our own worst enemy, and no amount of finger-pointing at other nations is going to change that fact.

There are many of us who act as if democracy is automated. We sit back, pay our taxes and expect someone else to fight our battles. If the past seven years has shown us anything, it is that our leaders are only as good as the standard to which we hold them. And if there's any truth to the old saying, "a stitch in time, saves nine," then we'd better start sewing fast, because the very path we're on leads to the same Communist China and Nazi Germany we so arrogantly rebuke.

Paul Allen

Stuarts Draft, Virginia

via email

Editor's Note: I certainly do not blame Norinco for the assualt weapons ban, but I do find it ironic that the importation of product from a company owned by the Communist Chinese government resulted in the restriction of our ownership of firearms. I also personally find it difficult to buy products from a communist government that was responsible for the deaths of many of those 'fallen heroes in Arlington," not to mention the deaths of innocent people in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia and Tibet.

I have been on Seecamp's waiting list for three years and finally have been notified of delivery within 30 days. What a blow it is then to read Dean Speir's piece in the March 2000 issue and find that my .32 is worthless in light of the new chambering in .380 auto. (Do you find a hint of sarcasm in my letter?)


What Mr. Speir didn't mention is that the new .380 gun has a life expectancy of only 1,000 rounds, and that every round of .380 fired is equal m wear and tear to a full clip of .32 rounds. Three extra recoil springs shipped with each gun should be a hint of trouble to come.

Durability means a lot to me. I think I'll stick with the .32 caliber.

Andy Buschmann,

Batesville, Arkansas

via email
COPYRIGHT 2000 InterMedia Outdoors, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2000 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Date:Jul 1, 2000
Previous Article:Bustin' Caps.
Next Article:One for the Books [ldots].

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters