Forum Comment: Sadly, Danny Glover finds, like many race-baiters, any right to be race based (except his right to be misinformed) . . .
By Gary DeMar - 1/19/2013
A meme is going around by a number of people claiming that the Second Amendment “the right to bear arms” was put in the Constitution to protect slavery. The following is from actor Danny Glover who spoke to a group of students at a Texas A&M University:
“‘I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,’ he said. ‘The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.
“‘A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis of the second amendment is,’ he continued.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Friday, January 18, 2013
An Assault Rifle . . .from your printer!
By Sebastian Anthony - 7/26/2012
An American gunsmith has become the first person to construct and shoot a pistol partly made out of plastic, 3D-printed parts. The creator, user HaveBlue from the AR-15 forum, has reportedly fired 200 rounds with his part-plastic pistol without any sign of wear and tear.
HaveBlue’s custom creation is a .22-caliber pistol, formed from a 3D-printed AR-15 (M16) lower receiver, and a normal, commercial upper. In other words, the main body of the gun is plastic, while the chamber where the bullets are actually struck is solid metal.
An American gunsmith has become the first person to construct and shoot a pistol partly made out of plastic, 3D-printed parts. The creator, user HaveBlue from the AR-15 forum, has reportedly fired 200 rounds with his part-plastic pistol without any sign of wear and tear.
HaveBlue’s custom creation is a .22-caliber pistol, formed from a 3D-printed AR-15 (M16) lower receiver, and a normal, commercial upper. In other words, the main body of the gun is plastic, while the chamber where the bullets are actually struck is solid metal.
"We the People" vs the U.S. Government
Forum Commentary - The United States is the only government in the world who's powers are constricted by "We the People (actually the States)" . .The purpose of the U.S. Constitution was to create a federal government of very limited powers -- all of those not specifically given to the Federal government remain with "the people". The Right to Bear Arms (or 2nd amendment) is one of them.
By Andrew P. Napolitano - 1/18/2013
If you have listened to President Obama and Vice President Biden talk about guns in the past month, you have heard them express a decided commitment to use the powers of the federal government to maintain safety in the United States. You also have heard congressional voices from politicians in both parties condemning violence and promising to do something about it. This sounds very caring and inside the wheelhouse of what we hire and pay the federal government to do.
But it is clearly unconstitutional.
By Andrew P. Napolitano - 1/18/2013
If you have listened to President Obama and Vice President Biden talk about guns in the past month, you have heard them express a decided commitment to use the powers of the federal government to maintain safety in the United States. You also have heard congressional voices from politicians in both parties condemning violence and promising to do something about it. This sounds very caring and inside the wheelhouse of what we hire and pay the federal government to do.
But it is clearly unconstitutional.
Assault Rifles vs Abortion
“The death of a hundred people is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.”- Joseph Stalin
Doug Patton - 1/18/2013
A little more than a month ago, 20 innocent children were savagely and senselessly slaughtered in their classroom at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, a fact now being used by an opportunistic president to further his agenda. That same day, 150 times that many innocent children were savagely and senselessly slaughtered in America’s abortion mills. The next day, the same thing happened. And the day after that. And the day after that.
Doug Patton - 1/18/2013
A little more than a month ago, 20 innocent children were savagely and senselessly slaughtered in their classroom at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, a fact now being used by an opportunistic president to further his agenda. That same day, 150 times that many innocent children were savagely and senselessly slaughtered in America’s abortion mills. The next day, the same thing happened. And the day after that. And the day after that.
Al Jazeera Still Promoting;Gun Violence; and Terrorism
Forum commentary - Curiously at a time when the world is filled with very bad guys with guns (and bombs), the President of the United States seems demonstratively unwilling to speak out against this world-wide Jihad. At the same time he pursues policies that defund our military and disarm the populace. Curiously.
By Cliff Kincaid - 1/18/2013
A major Islamist terrorist threat has emerged in Africa, and Al Jazeera is right in the middle of it, as usual. President Obama is largely AWOL, so the left-wing, socialist president of France has taken the lead and is committing military forces to stopping the threat.
Playing a familiar role, Al Jazeera has been airing sympathetic coverage about the Muslim terrorists and running “exclusive” interviews with terrorist leaders from Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), whose symbol is an AK-47 rifle and a black flag rising from the globe.
President Obama on Wednesday held a news conference about “gun violence” in the U.S. but has been slow to do anything about the violence and terrorism (or the AK-47's) that threatens Africa.
By Cliff Kincaid - 1/18/2013
A major Islamist terrorist threat has emerged in Africa, and Al Jazeera is right in the middle of it, as usual. President Obama is largely AWOL, so the left-wing, socialist president of France has taken the lead and is committing military forces to stopping the threat.
Playing a familiar role, Al Jazeera has been airing sympathetic coverage about the Muslim terrorists and running “exclusive” interviews with terrorist leaders from Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), whose symbol is an AK-47 rifle and a black flag rising from the globe.
President Obama on Wednesday held a news conference about “gun violence” in the U.S. but has been slow to do anything about the violence and terrorism (or the AK-47's) that threatens Africa.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Guns don’t kill people, mentally ill do
By: Ann Coulter - 1/16/2013
Seung-Hui Cho, who committed the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, had been diagnosed with severe anxiety disorder as a child and placed under treatment.
But Virginia Tech was prohibited from being told about Cho’s mental health problems because of federal privacy laws.
At college, Cho engaged in behavior even more bizarre than the average college student. He stalked three women and, at one point, went totally silent, refusing to speak even to his roommates. He was involuntarily committed to a mental institution for one night and then unaccountably unleashed on the public, whereupon he proceeded to engage in the deadliest mass shooting by an individual in U.S. history.
The NRA's Bright Idea: A TSA Agent (with a Gun) in Every Elementary School?
By Elspeth Reeve
The National Rifle Association's proposal to put armed guards in every single school in America was unimaginably tone-deaf, but it's not unimaginable. After a public outcry for security, we've had a massive nationwide effort to hire thousands of security agents for low wages relatively recently. You might know it as the Transportation Security Administration, which recruited 45,000 security screeners in response to Sept. 11. You know, the people who are supposed to prevent terrorists from boarding planes but are better known for making a lady drink her own breast milk to prove it wasn't explosive.
The NRA is essentially proposing hiring a workforce of security agents even larger than the TSA's screeners there are roughly 99,000 schools in the country and tasking them with monitoring every single person who passes through the halls. Except these agents will also have guns. "If it's crazy to call for putting police and armed security in our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy," the NRA's Wayne LaPierre said on Meet the Press. Anyone with familiarity with government hiring practices might use that word.
The National Rifle Association's proposal to put armed guards in every single school in America was unimaginably tone-deaf, but it's not unimaginable. After a public outcry for security, we've had a massive nationwide effort to hire thousands of security agents for low wages relatively recently. You might know it as the Transportation Security Administration, which recruited 45,000 security screeners in response to Sept. 11. You know, the people who are supposed to prevent terrorists from boarding planes but are better known for making a lady drink her own breast milk to prove it wasn't explosive.
The NRA is essentially proposing hiring a workforce of security agents even larger than the TSA's screeners there are roughly 99,000 schools in the country and tasking them with monitoring every single person who passes through the halls. Except these agents will also have guns. "If it's crazy to call for putting police and armed security in our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy," the NRA's Wayne LaPierre said on Meet the Press. Anyone with familiarity with government hiring practices might use that word.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Dispelling the Myths of Hoplophobia (irrational fear of firearms)
By: Doug Edelman - 1/9/2013
In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre and in the looming shadow of efforts and proposals to restrict legal access by law abiding citizens to firearms ranging from limiting magazine capacity to outright bans and confiscation; it is important to separate fact from fiction and answer the argument of those who would seek to abridge the 2nd Amendment rights of ordinary Americans.
It has been said that every time there is a mass shooting, someone tries to take guns away from the people who didn’t do it!
The fact is that most gun control advocates are frightened of firearms, have never owned, held or fired a gun, and hold misconceptions about both the hardware and the right to bear it. So let’s set the record straight and address these directly.
In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre and in the looming shadow of efforts and proposals to restrict legal access by law abiding citizens to firearms ranging from limiting magazine capacity to outright bans and confiscation; it is important to separate fact from fiction and answer the argument of those who would seek to abridge the 2nd Amendment rights of ordinary Americans.
It has been said that every time there is a mass shooting, someone tries to take guns away from the people who didn’t do it!
The fact is that most gun control advocates are frightened of firearms, have never owned, held or fired a gun, and hold misconceptions about both the hardware and the right to bear it. So let’s set the record straight and address these directly.
Friday, January 11, 2013
2nd Amendment: The right to shoot tyrants, not deer
By Andrew P. Napolitano - 1/10/2013
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. Yet the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a brake on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. Yet the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a brake on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.
Americans are too smart for gun control?
By Michael S. Brown - 1/10/2013
History of restriction is one of utter failure . . .
In the wake of the December school shooting in Newtown, Conn., politicians and journalists who hate to see guns in the hands of ordinary citizens turned into a raving mob who sensed that victory over their enemies was near.
Reality is now starting to set in. There are several reasons why we probably won’t see any new laws and certainly no laws that will prevent school attacks. The first reason is that the American people are now seeing the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the anti-gun lobby.
For years, we have been promised that President Obama and his party would never move against lawful gun owners. Now that he is not facing any more elections, the promise is forgotten. Who doubts that this was the plan all along?
History of restriction is one of utter failure . . .
In the wake of the December school shooting in Newtown, Conn., politicians and journalists who hate to see guns in the hands of ordinary citizens turned into a raving mob who sensed that victory over their enemies was near.
Reality is now starting to set in. There are several reasons why we probably won’t see any new laws and certainly no laws that will prevent school attacks. The first reason is that the American people are now seeing the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the anti-gun lobby.
For years, we have been promised that President Obama and his party would never move against lawful gun owners. Now that he is not facing any more elections, the promise is forgotten. Who doubts that this was the plan all along?
Our 2nd Amendment right: The militia is the key
By Alan Keyes
Any effort to disarm the American people is unlawful. That is clear according to the “laws of nature and of nature’s God” and the clear, plain language of the Constitution. Moves to disarm the people are unequivocally the benchmark of a design “to reduce them under absolute despotism.”
Despotism is Barack Obama’s purpose and the purpose of any and all forces in our society who support his bid to render Americans defenseless. Some of his less astute supporters are already sighing aloud about the need for dictatorship. Others, less imprudent, slyly promote the notion that to secure ourselves against madmen and terrorists we have no choice but to surrender to government all means of defending ourselves against either. Their policy is “Disarm and trust the government.” But when those in government become, or make use of madmen and terrorists (as the totalitarian Communists and Nazis of the 20th century did), what then?
Any effort to disarm the American people is unlawful. That is clear according to the “laws of nature and of nature’s God” and the clear, plain language of the Constitution. Moves to disarm the people are unequivocally the benchmark of a design “to reduce them under absolute despotism.”
Despotism is Barack Obama’s purpose and the purpose of any and all forces in our society who support his bid to render Americans defenseless. Some of his less astute supporters are already sighing aloud about the need for dictatorship. Others, less imprudent, slyly promote the notion that to secure ourselves against madmen and terrorists we have no choice but to surrender to government all means of defending ourselves against either. Their policy is “Disarm and trust the government.” But when those in government become, or make use of madmen and terrorists (as the totalitarian Communists and Nazis of the 20th century did), what then?
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Second Amendment. . .“the first law of nature”!
By RD Skidmore - 1/9/2013
Every man having a sense of humanity detests seeing families destroyed, innocent children sacrificed and promising lives snuffed as witnessed at Sandy Hook School. The argument that reducing the number of guns will produce a safer society beguiles the public, promotes politicians and fails to hold wicked people accountable for their actions.
While gun rights supporters assert that the Constitutional Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bears arms is an inalienable individual right just as freedom of speech or religion, and confirmed by the our Supreme Court. Gun opponents assert this right pertains only to collective bodies such as the militia, the military, police or National Guard.
The Washington Post states: “[T]he sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned…[W]e do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep them.
Every man having a sense of humanity detests seeing families destroyed, innocent children sacrificed and promising lives snuffed as witnessed at Sandy Hook School. The argument that reducing the number of guns will produce a safer society beguiles the public, promotes politicians and fails to hold wicked people accountable for their actions.
While gun rights supporters assert that the Constitutional Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bears arms is an inalienable individual right just as freedom of speech or religion, and confirmed by the our Supreme Court. Gun opponents assert this right pertains only to collective bodies such as the militia, the military, police or National Guard.
The Washington Post states: “[T]he sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned…[W]e do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep them.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Coulter: Doing the research the New York Times won’t do
By: Ann Coulter - 1/9/2013
In Sunday’s New York Times, Elisabeth Rosenthal claimed, as the title of her article put it, “More Guns = More Killing.” She based this on evidence that would never be permitted in any other context at the Times: (1) anecdotal observations; and (2) bald assertions of an activist, blandly repeated with absolutely no independent fact-checking by the Times.
There is an academic, peer-reviewed, long-term study of the effect of various public policies on public, multiple shootings in all 50 states over a 20-year period performed by renowned economists at the University of Chicago and Yale, William Landes and John Lott. It concluded that the only policy to reduce the incidence of, and casualties from, mass shootings are concealed-carry laws. The Times will never mention this study.
In Sunday’s New York Times, Elisabeth Rosenthal claimed, as the title of her article put it, “More Guns = More Killing.” She based this on evidence that would never be permitted in any other context at the Times: (1) anecdotal observations; and (2) bald assertions of an activist, blandly repeated with absolutely no independent fact-checking by the Times.
There is an academic, peer-reviewed, long-term study of the effect of various public policies on public, multiple shootings in all 50 states over a 20-year period performed by renowned economists at the University of Chicago and Yale, William Landes and John Lott. It concluded that the only policy to reduce the incidence of, and casualties from, mass shootings are concealed-carry laws. The Times will never mention this study.
First . . .“2nd Amendment Preservation Ordinance.”
By Mark Kessler
2nd Amendment Preservation Ordinance
AN Ordinance, which shall be known and may be cited as the “2nd Amendment Preservation Ordinance.”
To prevent federal, State or local infringement on the right to keep and bear Firearms, Firearms accessories or ammunition ; nullifying all federal, state or local acts in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States along with section 21 “Right to Bear Arms of the Pennsylvania constitution.
THE PEOPLE OF THE BOROUGH OF GILBERTON DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
2nd Amendment Preservation Ordinance
AN Ordinance, which shall be known and may be cited as the “2nd Amendment Preservation Ordinance.”
To prevent federal, State or local infringement on the right to keep and bear Firearms, Firearms accessories or ammunition ; nullifying all federal, state or local acts in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States along with section 21 “Right to Bear Arms of the Pennsylvania constitution.
THE PEOPLE OF THE BOROUGH OF GILBERTON DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
Pennsylvania Police Chief Proposes ’2nd Amendment Preservation’ Ordinance
By Aaron Dykes - January 3, 2013
Demand a Real Plan: Nullify Unconstitutional Gun Control
The town is small, but the message is clear: do not infringe.
A police chief in Gilberton, Pennsylvania, a small burough in Schuylkill County with a population of only 867 people, is proposing a ’2nd Amendment Preservation’ Ordinance that he plans to present to the city council during its January 24, 2013 meeting.
The ordinance, if adopted, would formally require the city to “enact any and all measures as may be necessary” to prevent the violation of the 2nd Amendment by any federal, state or local entity.
In addition to formally recognizing the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, Chief of Police Mark Kessler, who wrote the proposal, also pointed out the additional protection under the Pennsylvania constitution which specifically recognizes the “Right to Bear Arms” under Sections 21.
That section reads, in full, “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”
The proposal would further require the local government to nullify “all federal, state or local acts in violation of the 2nd Amendment” and declare them to be invalid within Gilberton Borough limits. The right to nullify unconstitutional laws is granted under the 10th Amendment to Constitution, which further reserves powers not explicitly granted to the (limited) federal government to the states and the people.
Police chief Mark Kessler confirmed an e-mail detailing his proposal by phone, indicating that he didn’t expect the ordinance would “do much” beyond sending a message to those in the media and Washington, yet he stated he felt the need to stand up to those demanding gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting tragedy.
From Infowars.com
Demand a Real Plan: Nullify Unconstitutional Gun Control
The town is small, but the message is clear: do not infringe.
A police chief in Gilberton, Pennsylvania, a small burough in Schuylkill County with a population of only 867 people, is proposing a ’2nd Amendment Preservation’ Ordinance that he plans to present to the city council during its January 24, 2013 meeting.
The ordinance, if adopted, would formally require the city to “enact any and all measures as may be necessary” to prevent the violation of the 2nd Amendment by any federal, state or local entity.
In addition to formally recognizing the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, Chief of Police Mark Kessler, who wrote the proposal, also pointed out the additional protection under the Pennsylvania constitution which specifically recognizes the “Right to Bear Arms” under Sections 21.
That section reads, in full, “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”
The proposal would further require the local government to nullify “all federal, state or local acts in violation of the 2nd Amendment” and declare them to be invalid within Gilberton Borough limits. The right to nullify unconstitutional laws is granted under the 10th Amendment to Constitution, which further reserves powers not explicitly granted to the (limited) federal government to the states and the people.
Police chief Mark Kessler confirmed an e-mail detailing his proposal by phone, indicating that he didn’t expect the ordinance would “do much” beyond sending a message to those in the media and Washington, yet he stated he felt the need to stand up to those demanding gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting tragedy.
From Infowars.com
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Two-Faced Union Bosses Help Shape Obama’s Attack On 2nd Amendment
By LaborUnionReport - 1/8/2013
“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms.” Barack Obama (Washington Times, 6/30/08)
In the run up to Barack Obama’s 2008 election, despite his radical past and anti-2nd Amendment record, union bosses far and wide tried to portray Obama as a pro-Constitution moderate who supports the 2nd Amendment.
However, as America’s gun-toting union members are about to find out–and much of America already knows–not only is Barack Obama a gun control advocate, but Obama is using his union ties to help disarm Americans.
“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms.” Barack Obama (Washington Times, 6/30/08)
In the run up to Barack Obama’s 2008 election, despite his radical past and anti-2nd Amendment record, union bosses far and wide tried to portray Obama as a pro-Constitution moderate who supports the 2nd Amendment.
However, as America’s gun-toting union members are about to find out–and much of America already knows–not only is Barack Obama a gun control advocate, but Obama is using his union ties to help disarm Americans.
Buchanan: America’s Coming Gun War
By Patrick J. Buchanan - 1/8/2013
Eight days after the massacre of 20 first-graders at Sandy Hook Elementary, where each child was shot with a Bushmaster .223, The Nation’s Gun Show, the biggest east of the Mississippi, opened.
“A line already snaked around the building shortly after the three-day event began at 3 p.m., and the parking lot was jammed” at the Dulles Expo Center in Chantilly, Va., wrote Justin Jouvenal of The Washington Post:
“With an AK-47 slung over one shoulder, Marco Hernandez offered one word when asked why he was in the overflow crowd at the gun show.”
“Obama,” he said. “I wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for the possible gun ban.”
Eight days after the massacre of 20 first-graders at Sandy Hook Elementary, where each child was shot with a Bushmaster .223, The Nation’s Gun Show, the biggest east of the Mississippi, opened.
“A line already snaked around the building shortly after the three-day event began at 3 p.m., and the parking lot was jammed” at the Dulles Expo Center in Chantilly, Va., wrote Justin Jouvenal of The Washington Post:
“With an AK-47 slung over one shoulder, Marco Hernandez offered one word when asked why he was in the overflow crowd at the gun show.”
“Obama,” he said. “I wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for the possible gun ban.”
Sunday, January 6, 2013
More Guns = More Killing?
By Elisabeth Rosenthal - 1/5/2013
In the wake of the tragic shooting deaths at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., last month, the National Rifle Association proposed that the best way to protect schoolchildren was to place a guard a “good guy with a gun” in every school, part of a so-called National School Shield Emergency Response Program.
Indeed, the N.R.A.’s solution to the expansion of gun violence in America has been generally to advocate for the more widespread deployment and carrying of guns.
I recently visited some Latin American countries that mesh with the N.R.A.’s vision of the promised land, where guards with guns grace every office lobby, storefront, A.T.M., restaurant and gas station. It has not made those countries safer or saner.
In the wake of the tragic shooting deaths at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., last month, the National Rifle Association proposed that the best way to protect schoolchildren was to place a guard a “good guy with a gun” in every school, part of a so-called National School Shield Emergency Response Program.
Indeed, the N.R.A.’s solution to the expansion of gun violence in America has been generally to advocate for the more widespread deployment and carrying of guns.
I recently visited some Latin American countries that mesh with the N.R.A.’s vision of the promised land, where guards with guns grace every office lobby, storefront, A.T.M., restaurant and gas station. It has not made those countries safer or saner.
Friday, January 4, 2013
The AR-15: The gun liberals love to hate
By: David Keene - 1/2/2013
Politician after politician have joined the television talking heads in calling for a new “assault weapons ban” patterned after the ten-year Clinton ban that was allowed to lapse in 2004 after Justice Department and private studies concluded it had no impact whatsoever on murder and violent crime rates and had become a symbol of wrong-headed governmental attempts to restrict firearms ownership in this country.
California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein has called for reinstituting the old Clinton ban to outlaw the sale, transfer and possession of such guns in the future while grandfathering those already in the hands of private parties. Others, like New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, have gone so far as to suggest “confiscation” or forced “buy back” programs “to get these weapons off the street.” In the last week dozens of commentators, reporters and politicians have said they support the 2nd Amendment, but would support an “assault weapons” ban because such weapons aren’t used for hunting and have no purpose other than to kill people.
Politician after politician have joined the television talking heads in calling for a new “assault weapons ban” patterned after the ten-year Clinton ban that was allowed to lapse in 2004 after Justice Department and private studies concluded it had no impact whatsoever on murder and violent crime rates and had become a symbol of wrong-headed governmental attempts to restrict firearms ownership in this country.
California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein has called for reinstituting the old Clinton ban to outlaw the sale, transfer and possession of such guns in the future while grandfathering those already in the hands of private parties. Others, like New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, have gone so far as to suggest “confiscation” or forced “buy back” programs “to get these weapons off the street.” In the last week dozens of commentators, reporters and politicians have said they support the 2nd Amendment, but would support an “assault weapons” ban because such weapons aren’t used for hunting and have no purpose other than to kill people.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Novel Idea - Liability Insurance for Gun Owners!
By David Sherfinski - 1/1/12013
Hoping to get beyond the debate over new gun-control laws, a group of economists and legal scholars is floating another plan they say could cut down on spree shootings: require all gun owners to carry liability insurance, similar to what automobile owners must have.
The plan, which was floated in Illinois' legislature in 2009, draws the ire of gun-rights groups who say it infringes on Americans’ Second Amendment rights and unfairly targets law-abiding gun owners. But backers say it offers a way to ferret out potentially dangerous or unstable criminals from the ranks of gun owners without having the federal government enact outright bans.
Hoping to get beyond the debate over new gun-control laws, a group of economists and legal scholars is floating another plan they say could cut down on spree shootings: require all gun owners to carry liability insurance, similar to what automobile owners must have.
The plan, which was floated in Illinois' legislature in 2009, draws the ire of gun-rights groups who say it infringes on Americans’ Second Amendment rights and unfairly targets law-abiding gun owners. But backers say it offers a way to ferret out potentially dangerous or unstable criminals from the ranks of gun owners without having the federal government enact outright bans.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Germany Compiles First Nationwide Gun Register
From AP
Germany has compiled a national register of firearms for the first time. Figures previously held by a multitude of local authorities have been centrally pooled as part of efforts to curb gun violence.
Germany's new national firearms registry established that there were 5.5 million legal guns in private ownership nationwide.
Figures compiled in what has been described as Germany's first reliable nationwide firearms count also showed there were 1.4 million registered owners - an average of approximately four weapons per listed individual.
Germany has compiled a national register of firearms for the first time. Figures previously held by a multitude of local authorities have been centrally pooled as part of efforts to curb gun violence.
Germany's new national firearms registry established that there were 5.5 million legal guns in private ownership nationwide.
Figures compiled in what has been described as Germany's first reliable nationwide firearms count also showed there were 1.4 million registered owners - an average of approximately four weapons per listed individual.
Why the 2nd Amendment?!
By Walter E. Williams
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." - Adolf Hitler.
Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings, said: "The British are not coming. ... We don't need all these guns to kill people." Lewis' vision, shared by many, represents a gross ignorance of why the framers of the Constitution gave us the Second Amendment. How about a few quotes from the period and you decide whether our Founding Fathers harbored a fear of foreign tyrants.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." - Adolf Hitler.
Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings, said: "The British are not coming. ... We don't need all these guns to kill people." Lewis' vision, shared by many, represents a gross ignorance of why the framers of the Constitution gave us the Second Amendment. How about a few quotes from the period and you decide whether our Founding Fathers harbored a fear of foreign tyrants.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Armed Civilians Really do Capture, Kill, Stop Mass Shooters
By: Eugene Volokh -12/16/2012
Backers of laws that let pretty much all law-abiding carry concealed guns in public places often argue that these laws will sometimes enable people to stop mass shootings.
Opponents occasionally ask: If that’s so, what examples can one give of civilians armed with guns stopping such shootings? Sometimes, I hear people asking if even one such example can be found, or saying that they haven’t heard even one such example.
Backers of laws that let pretty much all law-abiding carry concealed guns in public places often argue that these laws will sometimes enable people to stop mass shootings.
Opponents occasionally ask: If that’s so, what examples can one give of civilians armed with guns stopping such shootings? Sometimes, I hear people asking if even one such example can be found, or saying that they haven’t heard even one such example.
Friday, December 28, 2012
2nd Amendment Rights - Bullet Proof?
By Bob Greenslade
Following the recent school shooting in Connecticut, American citizens have once again displayed their total ignorance concerning the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment. Facebook postings, comments to so-called news articles and letters to the editor are calling for repeal of the Second Amendment. These individuals believe the right to own a firearm is based on the Second Amendment and the right will vanish if the Amendment can be repealed. Unless the Second Amendment created the right, then repeal of the Amendment cannot constitutionally abolish the right.
Following the recent school shooting in Connecticut, American citizens have once again displayed their total ignorance concerning the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment. Facebook postings, comments to so-called news articles and letters to the editor are calling for repeal of the Second Amendment. These individuals believe the right to own a firearm is based on the Second Amendment and the right will vanish if the Amendment can be repealed. Unless the Second Amendment created the right, then repeal of the Amendment cannot constitutionally abolish the right.
U.N. Debates New Anti-Gun Treaty
By Louis Charbonneau - Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:13pm EST
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on Monday to restart negotiations on a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global trade in conventional arms, a pact the powerful U.S. National Rifle Association has been lobbying hard against.
U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because U.S. President Barack Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney before the November 6 election if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge U.S. officials have denied.
The NRA, which has come under intense criticism for its reaction to the December 15 shooting massacre of 20 children and six educators at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, opposes the idea of an arms trade treaty and has pressured Obama to reject it.
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on Monday to restart negotiations on a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global trade in conventional arms, a pact the powerful U.S. National Rifle Association has been lobbying hard against.
U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because U.S. President Barack Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney before the November 6 election if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge U.S. officials have denied.
The NRA, which has come under intense criticism for its reaction to the December 15 shooting massacre of 20 children and six educators at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, opposes the idea of an arms trade treaty and has pressured Obama to reject it.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Guns in Schools Can Save Lives
By John R. Lott Jr. - December 26, 2012 9:02 am
USA Today - Has anyone noticed that these mass shootings at public schools increased after the 1995 Gun-Free School Zone Act? Passed with good intentions, banning guns would supposedly make schools safer.
But law abiding citizens, not criminals, obey these bans. Instead of making places safer, disarming law abiding citizens left them sitting ducks.
USA Today - Has anyone noticed that these mass shootings at public schools increased after the 1995 Gun-Free School Zone Act? Passed with good intentions, banning guns would supposedly make schools safer.
But law abiding citizens, not criminals, obey these bans. Instead of making places safer, disarming law abiding citizens left them sitting ducks.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
When ‘Assault Weapons’ Saved Koreatown
By Ryan James Girdusky - 12/23/2012 06:12 PM
Opponents of assault rifles best argument is. . ."there is NO situation or circumstance where a citizen might need an assault rifle." This writer begs to differ. -Editor
This year marked the 21st anniversary of the Los Angeles riots, sparked by the acquittal of four Los Angeles Police Department officers accused of beating the now-deceased Rodney King. During the five days, mobs around Los Angeles looted stores, burnt 3,767 buildings, caused more than $1 billion in property damage, and led to the deaths of more than 50 people and left another 4,000 injured. A story that has been forgotten since then is that of the brave storeowners in Koreatown who fended off mobs with handguns, rifles and assault weapons.
On the second day of the riots, the police had abandoned much of Koreatown. Jay Rhee, a storeowner in the area, stated to The Los Angeles Times, “we have lost faith in the police.”
Monday, December 24, 2012
An individual right: Obama and the 2nd Amendment?
EDITORIAL - Unionleader.com
In his Wednesday press conference on gun control, President Obama said something hugely important. He said that he agreed with the historical understanding of the Second Amendment, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008, that it protects an individual (not a collective) right to keep and bear arms.
"Look, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms," he said. That might sound perfectly ordinary to most Americans. It is the whole point of the Second Amendment, after all. But that is not how the political left has misinterpreted the amendment for a long time.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Good Guys with Guns - National Rifle Association
By Wayne LaPierre - President NRA
The National Rifle Association’s 4 million mothers, fathers, sons and daughters join the nation in horror, outrage, grief and earnest prayer for the families of Newtown, Connecticut … who suffered such incomprehensible loss as a result of this unspeakable crime.
Out of respect for those grieving families, and until the facts are known, the NRA has refrained from comment. While some have tried to exploit tragedy for political gain, we have remained respectfully silent.
Now, we must speak … for the safety of our nation’s children. Because for all the noise and anger directed at us over the past week, no one nobody has addressed the most important, pressing and immediate question we face: How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?
The National Rifle Association’s 4 million mothers, fathers, sons and daughters join the nation in horror, outrage, grief and earnest prayer for the families of Newtown, Connecticut … who suffered such incomprehensible loss as a result of this unspeakable crime.
Out of respect for those grieving families, and until the facts are known, the NRA has refrained from comment. While some have tried to exploit tragedy for political gain, we have remained respectfully silent.
Now, we must speak … for the safety of our nation’s children. Because for all the noise and anger directed at us over the past week, no one nobody has addressed the most important, pressing and immediate question we face: How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?
Teachers Support Guns
By Michelle Celarier - December 21, 2012 6:45 am
NY Post - America's teachers are facing a $100 million conundrum.
That's roughly the amount various teacher pension, school and retirement funds have invested in the publicly traded stocks of four gun makers, according to regulatory filings.
It's a problem that has sent them scrambling since a 20-year-old man used a semiautomatic rifle in a massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
They are being forced to choose between the typically reliable investment in gun makers and the public outcry for decisive action.
NY Post - America's teachers are facing a $100 million conundrum.
That's roughly the amount various teacher pension, school and retirement funds have invested in the publicly traded stocks of four gun makers, according to regulatory filings.
It's a problem that has sent them scrambling since a 20-year-old man used a semiautomatic rifle in a massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
They are being forced to choose between the typically reliable investment in gun makers and the public outcry for decisive action.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Elder: Gun Violence - Let's Shift the Odds in Favor of the Good Guys!
By Larry Elder - December 20, 2012 6:55 am
The unimaginable horror of Sandy Hook jumpstarts another "national conversation" about firearm violence. President Barack Obama, promising "meaningful action," said: "We will have to change. ... We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end."
Let's examine four of the "commonsense" measures frequently proposed by "gun control advocates":
One, closing the "gun show loophole." What gun show loophole? Restricted from selling at guns shows prior to 1986, a licensed dealer today requires a background check whether he sells guns at a store, a gun show or the back of his SUV.
The unimaginable horror of Sandy Hook jumpstarts another "national conversation" about firearm violence. President Barack Obama, promising "meaningful action," said: "We will have to change. ... We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end."
Let's examine four of the "commonsense" measures frequently proposed by "gun control advocates":
One, closing the "gun show loophole." What gun show loophole? Restricted from selling at guns shows prior to 1986, a licensed dealer today requires a background check whether he sells guns at a store, a gun show or the back of his SUV.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
We Know How to Stop School Shootings
By Ann Coulter - 12/19/2012 07:05 PM
In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman’s mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation’s attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre.
Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.
Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.
In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman’s mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation’s attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre.
Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.
Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.
A 21st Century Witch Hunt
By Michelle Malkin - December 19, 2012 6:58 am
In the aftermath of the horrific Newtown, Conn., school massacre, Americans from all parts of the political spectrum agree that we need to pay more attention to mental health issues. Public death threats and incitements to violence must be taken seriously. The incendiary witch hunt against law-abiding, peaceful gun owners is neither noble nor effective. It's just plain insane.
Over the past week, I've witnessed a disturbing outbreak of off-the-rails hatred toward gun owners and Second Amendment groups. Whatever your views on guns, we can all agree: The Newtown gunman was a monster who slaughtered his own mother, five heroic educators and 20 angel-faced schoolchildren. He ignored laws against murder. He bypassed Connecticut's strict gun control regulations, and he circumvented the Sandy Hook Elementary School's security measures. Every decent American is horrified and heartsick by this outbreak of pure evil.
In the aftermath of the horrific Newtown, Conn., school massacre, Americans from all parts of the political spectrum agree that we need to pay more attention to mental health issues. Public death threats and incitements to violence must be taken seriously. The incendiary witch hunt against law-abiding, peaceful gun owners is neither noble nor effective. It's just plain insane.
Over the past week, I've witnessed a disturbing outbreak of off-the-rails hatred toward gun owners and Second Amendment groups. Whatever your views on guns, we can all agree: The Newtown gunman was a monster who slaughtered his own mother, five heroic educators and 20 angel-faced schoolchildren. He ignored laws against murder. He bypassed Connecticut's strict gun control regulations, and he circumvented the Sandy Hook Elementary School's security measures. Every decent American is horrified and heartsick by this outbreak of pure evil.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Gun-Rights Advocates Should Fear History of Second Amendment
By Saul Cornell - Dec 18, 2012 4:45 AM EST
On Sunday, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer went on CBS’s Face The Nation and argued that people who support gun control “have to admit that there is a Second Amendment right to bear arms”.
Schumer’s effort to reach out to the gun-rights community may be well-intentioned, but it is also deeply ironic. If the nation truly embraced the Second Amendment as it was originally written and understood, it would be the NRA’s worst nightmare.
On Sunday, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer went on CBS’s Face The Nation and argued that people who support gun control “have to admit that there is a Second Amendment right to bear arms”.
Schumer’s effort to reach out to the gun-rights community may be well-intentioned, but it is also deeply ironic. If the nation truly embraced the Second Amendment as it was originally written and understood, it would be the NRA’s worst nightmare.
More Guns - Less Murder
By Thomas Sowell - December 18, 2012 6:55 am
Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of "gun control" advocates?
The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.
If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.
Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.
Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of "gun control" advocates?
The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.
If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.
Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.
Guns, Mental Illness and Newtown
By David Kopel
There were 18 random mass shootings in the 1980s, 54 in the 1990s, and 87 in the 2000s.
Has the rate of random mass shootings in the United States increased? Over the past 30 years, the answer is definitely yes. It is also true that the total U.S. homicide rate has fallen by over half since 1980, and the gun homicide rate has fallen along with it. Today, Americans are safer from violent crime, including gun homicide, than they have been at any time since the mid-1960s.
Mass shootings, defined as four or more fatalities, fluctuate from year to year, but over the past 30 years there has been no long-term increase or decrease. But "random" mass shootings, such as the horrific crimes last Friday in Newtown, Conn., have increased.
There were 18 random mass shootings in the 1980s, 54 in the 1990s, and 87 in the 2000s.
Has the rate of random mass shootings in the United States increased? Over the past 30 years, the answer is definitely yes. It is also true that the total U.S. homicide rate has fallen by over half since 1980, and the gun homicide rate has fallen along with it. Today, Americans are safer from violent crime, including gun homicide, than they have been at any time since the mid-1960s.
Mass shootings, defined as four or more fatalities, fluctuate from year to year, but over the past 30 years there has been no long-term increase or decrease. But "random" mass shootings, such as the horrific crimes last Friday in Newtown, Conn., have increased.
One in 300 Million
By Neil W. McCabe - Editor, Guns & Patriots
The Dec. 13 mass shooting at the Sandy Hook School in Newtown, Conn., is an unspeakable tragedy. The victims, most of them first graders, were behind locked doors and beginning the school day with no idea of what was to follow.
In our age, there is only one other tragedy that comes close to what happened in Newtownand sadly, other places too, the mass casualty airliner crash. There too, too many completely innocent individuals are lost to us at once.
In the mainstream media, there is a big difference in how these two occurrences are treated. In the case of the airliner disaster, whether caused by weather or by terrorists, we are told over and over again that the actual percentage of deaths by flying passengers is very smallso small that it would be foolish not to fly over such concerns.
But, what are we told after a mass shooting at a school?
In sharp contrast, we are told that because one individual out of 300 million went on a rampage, the rest of the 300 million Americans must forgo a right acknowledged in the Bill of Rights as existing before the founding of our current Republic.
While we are looking at percentages, Larry Pratt, the president of Gun Owners of America, points out: "What a lethal, false security are the Gun Free Zone laws. All of our mass murders in the last 20 years have occurred in 'Gun Free Zones."
I am not convinced that because a school in the Nutmeg State did not have an armed guardor teacher, groundskeeper or cafeteria worker, we need to ignore the Bill of Rights.
The Dec. 13 mass shooting at the Sandy Hook School in Newtown, Conn., is an unspeakable tragedy. The victims, most of them first graders, were behind locked doors and beginning the school day with no idea of what was to follow.
In our age, there is only one other tragedy that comes close to what happened in Newtownand sadly, other places too, the mass casualty airliner crash. There too, too many completely innocent individuals are lost to us at once.
In the mainstream media, there is a big difference in how these two occurrences are treated. In the case of the airliner disaster, whether caused by weather or by terrorists, we are told over and over again that the actual percentage of deaths by flying passengers is very smallso small that it would be foolish not to fly over such concerns.
But, what are we told after a mass shooting at a school?
In sharp contrast, we are told that because one individual out of 300 million went on a rampage, the rest of the 300 million Americans must forgo a right acknowledged in the Bill of Rights as existing before the founding of our current Republic.
While we are looking at percentages, Larry Pratt, the president of Gun Owners of America, points out: "What a lethal, false security are the Gun Free Zone laws. All of our mass murders in the last 20 years have occurred in 'Gun Free Zones."
I am not convinced that because a school in the Nutmeg State did not have an armed guardor teacher, groundskeeper or cafeteria worker, we need to ignore the Bill of Rights.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Progressives Hope Supreme Court Will Restrict Concealed Carry
By Mark Sherman - December 17, 2012
Washington (AP) - The next big issue in the national debate over guns whether people have a right to be armed in public is moving closer to review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
A provocative ruling by a panel of federal appeals court judges in Chicago struck down the only statewide ban on carrying concealed weapons, in Illinois. The ruling is somewhat at odds with those of other federal courts that have largely upheld state and local gun laws, including restrictions on concealed weapons, since the Supreme Court's landmark ruling declaring that people have a right to have a gun for self-defence.
In 2008, the high court voted 5-4 in District of Columbia v. Heller to strike down Washington's ban on handgun ownership and focused mainly on the right to defend one's own home. The court left for another day how broadly the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution may protect gun rights in other settings.
Legal scholars say the competing appellate rulings mean that day is drawing near for a new high court case on gun rights.
Washington (AP) - The next big issue in the national debate over guns whether people have a right to be armed in public is moving closer to review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
A provocative ruling by a panel of federal appeals court judges in Chicago struck down the only statewide ban on carrying concealed weapons, in Illinois. The ruling is somewhat at odds with those of other federal courts that have largely upheld state and local gun laws, including restrictions on concealed weapons, since the Supreme Court's landmark ruling declaring that people have a right to have a gun for self-defence.
In 2008, the high court voted 5-4 in District of Columbia v. Heller to strike down Washington's ban on handgun ownership and focused mainly on the right to defend one's own home. The court left for another day how broadly the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution may protect gun rights in other settings.
Legal scholars say the competing appellate rulings mean that day is drawing near for a new high court case on gun rights.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Top 10 Concealed Carry Guns
By: Mark Walters - 12/7/2010
This article is sure to generate a ton of emotion and that is a good thing. A “top ten” list of anything is going to be helpful to some, controversial to many and just plain flat out wrong to others. No matter what I put on the list or where I may rank it, someone is certain to tell me I’m right just as someone else is certain to tell me I’m wrong. (That’s what makes America great)!
So, here we go.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Why long-gun registries don’t work and never did!
Gary A. Mauser - December 11, 2012
In March, Stephen Harper’s Canadian government reversed decades of increasing restrictions on civilian firearms, scrapping the controversial long-gun registry on grounds that it was wasteful and ineffective. Gun laws, the prime minister correctly said, should focus on criminals rather than law-abiding citizens such as farmers and hunters.
Some claim that this Conservative policy flies in the face of a mountain of evidence, and even represents an assault against reason. Canadian voters seem divided on this issue, as well as some basic related questions: Are firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens a serious threat to public safety? Is registration an effective approach to controlling misuse? How useful was the long-gun registry to police? This article will answer some of those questions.
In March, Stephen Harper’s Canadian government reversed decades of increasing restrictions on civilian firearms, scrapping the controversial long-gun registry on grounds that it was wasteful and ineffective. Gun laws, the prime minister correctly said, should focus on criminals rather than law-abiding citizens such as farmers and hunters.
Some claim that this Conservative policy flies in the face of a mountain of evidence, and even represents an assault against reason. Canadian voters seem divided on this issue, as well as some basic related questions: Are firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens a serious threat to public safety? Is registration an effective approach to controlling misuse? How useful was the long-gun registry to police? This article will answer some of those questions.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Tyrants Beware . . . the 2nd Amendment
By Bart Wilburn
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
As simple as these word are, we have been arguing about what they mean for a long time. Part of the problem is that many people engaged in the argument do not interpret the 2nd Amendment with respect for its historical context, but rather in light of what they want it to mean in support of their purposes. If we want to be honest about it, we must look to the origins of the amendment to understand it in the context of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, and only then can we consider it in our present context. The issue is further complicated by the fact that an increasingly large proportion of the U.S. population has no experience in the use of arms; they see arms as irrelevant to their lives at best or a threat at worst. This is important because the 2nd Amendment is always susceptible and becomes vulnerable when too many think it is an archaic artifact.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
As simple as these word are, we have been arguing about what they mean for a long time. Part of the problem is that many people engaged in the argument do not interpret the 2nd Amendment with respect for its historical context, but rather in light of what they want it to mean in support of their purposes. If we want to be honest about it, we must look to the origins of the amendment to understand it in the context of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, and only then can we consider it in our present context. The issue is further complicated by the fact that an increasingly large proportion of the U.S. population has no experience in the use of arms; they see arms as irrelevant to their lives at best or a threat at worst. This is important because the 2nd Amendment is always susceptible and becomes vulnerable when too many think it is an archaic artifact.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Lock Your Doors and Load Your Guns
December 1, 2012
By Bobby Eberle
A city attorney in California is taking heat for comments made during a recent city council meeting. Faced with a bankrupt city government and cutbacks to the police force, the official told citizens to "lock their door and load their guns" as a way to fight crime. Was this over the top or simply telling it like it is?
As reported by CBS in Los Angeles, San Bernardino City Attorney Jim Penman spoke before a group of about 150 local residents. They are frustrated and worried about the growing crime rate and falling police response times.
By Bobby Eberle
A city attorney in California is taking heat for comments made during a recent city council meeting. Faced with a bankrupt city government and cutbacks to the police force, the official told citizens to "lock their door and load their guns" as a way to fight crime. Was this over the top or simply telling it like it is?
As reported by CBS in Los Angeles, San Bernardino City Attorney Jim Penman spoke before a group of about 150 local residents. They are frustrated and worried about the growing crime rate and falling police response times.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Concealed Carry -- Only for a few?
November 28, 2012
By: Mark Wachtler
Two separate cases, each arguing basically the same question, have been making their way through the American federal justice system. The cases involve a fundamental Constitutional question. Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee the right to keep and bear arms…outside the home? The first of two US Appeals Courts has just returned a verdict, and that verdict is no.
The 2 cases
One case is regarding a New York law and is in the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. The other case involves a Maryland law and is in the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. In each case, state legislatures enacted laws that restricted the right to carry concealed firearms outside of the gun owner’s home.
By: Mark Wachtler
Two separate cases, each arguing basically the same question, have been making their way through the American federal justice system. The cases involve a fundamental Constitutional question. Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee the right to keep and bear arms…outside the home? The first of two US Appeals Courts has just returned a verdict, and that verdict is no.
The 2 cases
One case is regarding a New York law and is in the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. The other case involves a Maryland law and is in the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. In each case, state legislatures enacted laws that restricted the right to carry concealed firearms outside of the gun owner’s home.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Disarm and Conquer
By Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D. - November 26, 2012
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787
DATELINE: Warsaw, Poland, 1943
In the Spring of 1943, the inhabitants of the Warsaw Ghetto, having become aware the Nazis were deporting the remaining Jews to the gas chambers of Treblinka, took up arms, whatever they could nd, and rebelled against the German occupiers. These determined insurgents had only homemade Molotov cocktails and a handful of small arms, revolvers, pistols, and a few military or hunting ri es. It took vastly superior Nazi forces to subdue the rebels, and the Germans suffered up to 300 casualties in pacifying the city.(1)
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787
DATELINE: Warsaw, Poland, 1943
In the Spring of 1943, the inhabitants of the Warsaw Ghetto, having become aware the Nazis were deporting the remaining Jews to the gas chambers of Treblinka, took up arms, whatever they could nd, and rebelled against the German occupiers. These determined insurgents had only homemade Molotov cocktails and a handful of small arms, revolvers, pistols, and a few military or hunting ri es. It took vastly superior Nazi forces to subdue the rebels, and the Germans suffered up to 300 casualties in pacifying the city.(1)
Friday, September 28, 2012
No Bullets. . .No Guns
By JW Ross
The purpose of 2nd AmendmentPA.com is to promote the birthplace of the 2nd amendment. However, when the very existence of the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights is in jeopardy, I feel that I owe my readers a truthful discussion of this reality.
The reality, in a new Obama term, of the appointment of one or two progressive judges to the Supreme Court is certain - as one or more Justices are reaching retirement by choice or for health reasons. President Obama has clearly indicated by his most recent appointment to the Court that he seeks out very progressive appointees who have made it clear that they do not support the 2nd amendment.
He has also made it clear, in numerous statements, that the 2nd amendment should be "revisited", what many say is code language for, "abolished". The appointment of one new Justice by Obama would move the court from approval to the disapproval of the tenets of the 2nd amendment.
The purpose of 2nd AmendmentPA.com is to promote the birthplace of the 2nd amendment. However, when the very existence of the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights is in jeopardy, I feel that I owe my readers a truthful discussion of this reality.
The reality, in a new Obama term, of the appointment of one or two progressive judges to the Supreme Court is certain - as one or more Justices are reaching retirement by choice or for health reasons. President Obama has clearly indicated by his most recent appointment to the Court that he seeks out very progressive appointees who have made it clear that they do not support the 2nd amendment.
He has also made it clear, in numerous statements, that the 2nd amendment should be "revisited", what many say is code language for, "abolished". The appointment of one new Justice by Obama would move the court from approval to the disapproval of the tenets of the 2nd amendment.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Original Intent of 2nd Amendment - AK-47s
By Earl Schwartz
The authors of the amendment clearly intended to guarantee citizens the right to the kinds of weapons issued to ordinary infantry, not only to the specific type of firearm available when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.
Consider what the amendment says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Given that all able free men between 18 and 45 had to be enrolled in the militia (see Statutes at Large, 2nd Congress, 1st Session, 271), the militia clause amounts to a promise that citizens can have the weapons needed to defend the security of the state. Nowadays that means, at the least, an ordinary infantry weapon such as an M-16 or an AK-47.
One might argue that such a promise is anachronistic in this age of sophisticated warfare. Even in the 18th century most understood that militia men could not stand up to well-drilled professionals. But the Second Amendment still says what it says. Don't like it? Repeal it, if you can.
The Columbian, WA
The authors of the amendment clearly intended to guarantee citizens the right to the kinds of weapons issued to ordinary infantry, not only to the specific type of firearm available when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.
Consider what the amendment says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Given that all able free men between 18 and 45 had to be enrolled in the militia (see Statutes at Large, 2nd Congress, 1st Session, 271), the militia clause amounts to a promise that citizens can have the weapons needed to defend the security of the state. Nowadays that means, at the least, an ordinary infantry weapon such as an M-16 or an AK-47.
One might argue that such a promise is anachronistic in this age of sophisticated warfare. Even in the 18th century most understood that militia men could not stand up to well-drilled professionals. But the Second Amendment still says what it says. Don't like it? Repeal it, if you can.
The Columbian, WA
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Perspective On the 2nd Amendment
By Neil W. McCabe, Editor Guns & Patriots
When a plane crashes with 100, 200 even 300 people killed. The main stream media constantly reminds us how very, very safe flying actually is. You know this is true.
When one or two or five madman out of 300 million Americans in a given year goes on a rampage with firearms, what does the MSM say?
I don't have to tell you. Turn on your radio or TV right now are hear that it is time to instill gun control on the rest of the 300 million who did not go on a rampage.
In the case of the attack on the Sikh temple, some reporters focused on the heroism of the temple leader. He died trying to stop the killer with his ceremonial knife. This was the right lesson. Sadly, he died defending the people and temple he loved.
Imagine now if the leader had a gun.
Conceivably, if the temple leader was armed with gun, he could have put the killer down--saving more lives and his own.
Of course, were that to happen, the main strean media would never mention it. Go figure.
From - GunsandPatriots@email.humanevents.com
When a plane crashes with 100, 200 even 300 people killed. The main stream media constantly reminds us how very, very safe flying actually is. You know this is true.
When one or two or five madman out of 300 million Americans in a given year goes on a rampage with firearms, what does the MSM say?
I don't have to tell you. Turn on your radio or TV right now are hear that it is time to instill gun control on the rest of the 300 million who did not go on a rampage.
In the case of the attack on the Sikh temple, some reporters focused on the heroism of the temple leader. He died trying to stop the killer with his ceremonial knife. This was the right lesson. Sadly, he died defending the people and temple he loved.
Imagine now if the leader had a gun.
Conceivably, if the temple leader was armed with gun, he could have put the killer down--saving more lives and his own.
Of course, were that to happen, the main strean media would never mention it. Go figure.
From - GunsandPatriots@email.humanevents.com
Sunday, August 12, 2012
2nd Amendment Strangled by Regulation
By JW Ross
The Universal Health Care Bill is turning out to be the Trojan Horse that the critics predicted.
The bill is written with such broad strokes that almost "anything" can be construed to be under the purview of "health care" (and health care administrators).
Now it is the 2nd Amendment.
With any game changing laws on the "right to own and bear arms" awaiting the appointment of a new justice to the Supreme Court, opponents are now trying to regulate guns as if they were a virus, a car, tobacco or alcohol?
Doctors call for public-health approach to controlling gun violence
By Marilynn Marchione, The Associated Press
MILWAUKEE -- Is a gun like a virus, a car, tobacco or alcohol?
Yes! say public-health experts, who in the wake of recent mass shootings are calling for a fresh look at gun violence as a social disease.
What we need, they say, is a public-health approach to the problem, like the highway safety measures, product changes and driving laws that slashed deaths from car crashes decades ago, even as the number of vehicles on the road rose.
The Universal Health Care Bill is turning out to be the Trojan Horse that the critics predicted.
The bill is written with such broad strokes that almost "anything" can be construed to be under the purview of "health care" (and health care administrators).
Now it is the 2nd Amendment.
With any game changing laws on the "right to own and bear arms" awaiting the appointment of a new justice to the Supreme Court, opponents are now trying to regulate guns as if they were a virus, a car, tobacco or alcohol?
Doctors call for public-health approach to controlling gun violence
By Marilynn Marchione, The Associated Press
MILWAUKEE -- Is a gun like a virus, a car, tobacco or alcohol?
Yes! say public-health experts, who in the wake of recent mass shootings are calling for a fresh look at gun violence as a social disease.
What we need, they say, is a public-health approach to the problem, like the highway safety measures, product changes and driving laws that slashed deaths from car crashes decades ago, even as the number of vehicles on the road rose.
Monday, August 6, 2012
India - Women & the 2nd Amendment
By Dwaipayan Ghosh - TNN Aug 4, 2012
NEW DELHI: It could be a new measure of women's emancipation or just a passing fad, but Delhi Police has been stumped by the huge number of working women seeking gun licences. The trend is partly a response to the city's lawlessness but may also reflect the growing need of women to be in control, claim senior officers.
In the past two years, Delhi cops have received over 900 applications for guns from women. While year 2010 saw around 320 applications, the figure had grown to around 500 in 2011. But it's not only the numbers that's a break from the past. There's a change as well in the reasons cited by women for bearing arms.
NEW DELHI: It could be a new measure of women's emancipation or just a passing fad, but Delhi Police has been stumped by the huge number of working women seeking gun licences. The trend is partly a response to the city's lawlessness but may also reflect the growing need of women to be in control, claim senior officers.
In the past two years, Delhi cops have received over 900 applications for guns from women. While year 2010 saw around 320 applications, the figure had grown to around 500 in 2011. But it's not only the numbers that's a break from the past. There's a change as well in the reasons cited by women for bearing arms.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Illinois: Governor Abuses Amendatory Veto Powers to Propose Semi-Auto Ban
NRA - August 1, 2012
Quinn uses a previously NRA-Backed Ammunition Purchase Reform Bill as Vehicle for Gun Ban
Yesterday, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn (D) vetoed the NRA-backed ammunition purchase reform bill, Senate Bill 681, after this common sense legislation had passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the Illinois legislature (previously reported on here). In a crass attempt to exploit the recent tragedy in Colorado and seek media attention, Quinn used his Amendatory Veto powers in a foolhardy attempt to impose more draconian gun control in Illinois. Quinn rewrote the entire bill as an amendment to the Illinois Criminal Code that includes an onerous ban on the manufacture, possession, delivery or sale of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms (inaccurately referred to as “assault weapons”), .50 caliber rifles and cartridges and “high capacity” magazines in Illinois. Quinn’s amendment additionally tramples on the rights of Illinois citizens by creating a de facto statewide registration scheme for currently-owned firearms and magazines.
Quinn uses a previously NRA-Backed Ammunition Purchase Reform Bill as Vehicle for Gun Ban
Yesterday, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn (D) vetoed the NRA-backed ammunition purchase reform bill, Senate Bill 681, after this common sense legislation had passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the Illinois legislature (previously reported on here). In a crass attempt to exploit the recent tragedy in Colorado and seek media attention, Quinn used his Amendatory Veto powers in a foolhardy attempt to impose more draconian gun control in Illinois. Quinn rewrote the entire bill as an amendment to the Illinois Criminal Code that includes an onerous ban on the manufacture, possession, delivery or sale of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms (inaccurately referred to as “assault weapons”), .50 caliber rifles and cartridges and “high capacity” magazines in Illinois. Quinn’s amendment additionally tramples on the rights of Illinois citizens by creating a de facto statewide registration scheme for currently-owned firearms and magazines.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Second Amendment at risk in Obama's Second Term
By Emily Miller
Democrats just couldn't hold it together. With less than 100 days to go before the election, the left let slip its vision of a second term for President Obama that will be the end for the Second Amendment.
They're riding on an emotional wave created by James Holmes, the suspected Aurora, Colo., movie-theater shooter who was charged with 24 counts of murder on Monday. As the courtroom proceedings in that case unfolded, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey Democrat, and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, New York Democrat, took to New York's city hall to introduce legislation making it much harder for law-abiding citizens nationwide to purchase ammunition.
The liberal duo would restrict ammunition sales to licensed dealers and require buyers to show a photo ID at the time of purchase, effectively banning people from doing their shopping online. Also, the dealer would have to maintain detailed records for each ammunition sale and report anyone purchasing over 1,000 rounds.
Democrats just couldn't hold it together. With less than 100 days to go before the election, the left let slip its vision of a second term for President Obama that will be the end for the Second Amendment.
They're riding on an emotional wave created by James Holmes, the suspected Aurora, Colo., movie-theater shooter who was charged with 24 counts of murder on Monday. As the courtroom proceedings in that case unfolded, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey Democrat, and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, New York Democrat, took to New York's city hall to introduce legislation making it much harder for law-abiding citizens nationwide to purchase ammunition.
The liberal duo would restrict ammunition sales to licensed dealers and require buyers to show a photo ID at the time of purchase, effectively banning people from doing their shopping online. Also, the dealer would have to maintain detailed records for each ammunition sale and report anyone purchasing over 1,000 rounds.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Second Amendment - Not Settled Law
By Madeleine Morgenstern
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday left open the possibility that some types of guns could be regulated by the government, such as assault weapons capable of holding 100 rounds of ammunition.
“What the opinion in Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases, what limitations upon the right to keep and bear arms are permissible,“ Scalia said on ”Fox News Sunday,” referring to the 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that protected the right to possess firearms.
“Some [limitations] undoubtedly are because there were some that were acknowledged at the time,” he continued. “There was a tort called a ”frighting” which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor. So yes there are some limitations that can be imposed, what they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time.”
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday left open the possibility that some types of guns could be regulated by the government, such as assault weapons capable of holding 100 rounds of ammunition.
“What the opinion in Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases, what limitations upon the right to keep and bear arms are permissible,“ Scalia said on ”Fox News Sunday,” referring to the 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that protected the right to possess firearms.
“Some [limitations] undoubtedly are because there were some that were acknowledged at the time,” he continued. “There was a tort called a ”frighting” which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor. So yes there are some limitations that can be imposed, what they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time.”
Friday, July 27, 2012
Weapons for Peace - Not War
By John R. Lott Jr.
July 27, 2012 4:00 A.M.
‘AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities,” President Obama told the National Urban League on Wednesday. After the deadly attack in Colorado last Friday, the president’s concern is understandable. However, even or perhaps especially at such a time, distinctions need to be made.
The police in Aurora, Colo., reported that the killer used a Smith & Wesson M&P 15. This weapon bears a cosmetic resemblance to the M-16, which has been used by the U.S. military since the Vietnam War. The call has frequently been made that there is “no reason” for such “military-style weapons” to be available to civilians.
July 27, 2012 4:00 A.M.
‘AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities,” President Obama told the National Urban League on Wednesday. After the deadly attack in Colorado last Friday, the president’s concern is understandable. However, even or perhaps especially at such a time, distinctions need to be made.
The police in Aurora, Colo., reported that the killer used a Smith & Wesson M&P 15. This weapon bears a cosmetic resemblance to the M-16, which has been used by the U.S. military since the Vietnam War. The call has frequently been made that there is “no reason” for such “military-style weapons” to be available to civilians.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Russia - And the Second Amendment
By Moskovsky Komsomolets - Izvestia
Russia May Legalize Possession of Handguns . . .Federation Council Vice-Speaker Alexander Torshin intends to propose a bill that would allow Russians to possess handguns and use them for self-defense without fear of being exposed to criminal liability. Presumably, the bill will be proposed in the State Duma early next year.
In the meantime, the Federation Council has launched an active indoctrination effort meant to influence the public into adopting a sober-minded attitude toward the Torshin initiative. On July 24, the vice-speaker himself will deliver an expert report to legislators, senators, Public Chamber members and representatives of gun associations. The same report will be submitted to the President’s Executive Office.
The report suggests amending the Federal Law On Weapons that allows the possession of shotguns, non-lethal weapons, gas guns, stun guns, pneumatic weapons, and cold steel arms (knives), but says nothing about handguns. Proponents insist that violent crime statistics tend to decline as the number of legal firearms owners increases.
Russia May Legalize Possession of Handguns . . .Federation Council Vice-Speaker Alexander Torshin intends to propose a bill that would allow Russians to possess handguns and use them for self-defense without fear of being exposed to criminal liability. Presumably, the bill will be proposed in the State Duma early next year.
In the meantime, the Federation Council has launched an active indoctrination effort meant to influence the public into adopting a sober-minded attitude toward the Torshin initiative. On July 24, the vice-speaker himself will deliver an expert report to legislators, senators, Public Chamber members and representatives of gun associations. The same report will be submitted to the President’s Executive Office.
The report suggests amending the Federal Law On Weapons that allows the possession of shotguns, non-lethal weapons, gas guns, stun guns, pneumatic weapons, and cold steel arms (knives), but says nothing about handguns. Proponents insist that violent crime statistics tend to decline as the number of legal firearms owners increases.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Armed People - Kill Armed People
By Jerry Ross
Armed People - Kill Armed People. . . Although it may sound like an obvious statement, it is central to the debate over the CO shooting. Key is the fact that the movie theater had a "No Firearms Allowed" policy.
No one in the theater had a weapon but the shooter.
Pro-gun advocates surmise that if a few, maybe one, theater goer had a weapon, even a handgun, they could have prevented or minimized the carnage. Even though the shooter had a bullet-proof vest a series of shots, even from a 22 caliber pistol could have given other individuals time to over power him.
Unless we place an armed officer in every public place, "No Guns" policies insures more massacres like the one in CO.
Armed People - Kill Armed People. . . Although it may sound like an obvious statement, it is central to the debate over the CO shooting. Key is the fact that the movie theater had a "No Firearms Allowed" policy.
No one in the theater had a weapon but the shooter.
Pro-gun advocates surmise that if a few, maybe one, theater goer had a weapon, even a handgun, they could have prevented or minimized the carnage. Even though the shooter had a bullet-proof vest a series of shots, even from a 22 caliber pistol could have given other individuals time to over power him.
Unless we place an armed officer in every public place, "No Guns" policies insures more massacres like the one in CO.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
U.N. treaty - No Right to Bear Arms
By Tribune-Review (Sunday, July 1, 2012 )
Regardless of how it’s couched, the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) treats the constitutional guarantee of U.S. gun ownership, let alone self-defense, as a cultural failure.
But that message will be muted in the propaganda run-up to the U.N.’s conference this month to finalize ATT. Why, this is simply about the lack of “standards” on arms transfers, according to Turtle Bay. The fact that so many U.N. member states are gun-grabbing dictatorships has no bearing on any of this, right?
Supposedly the ATT “does not aim to impede or interfere with the lawful ownership and use of weapons,” according to the U.N.’s Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) program. But in a paper prepared by CASA, the actual intention couldn’t be more clear:
Regardless of how it’s couched, the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) treats the constitutional guarantee of U.S. gun ownership, let alone self-defense, as a cultural failure.
But that message will be muted in the propaganda run-up to the U.N.’s conference this month to finalize ATT. Why, this is simply about the lack of “standards” on arms transfers, according to Turtle Bay. The fact that so many U.N. member states are gun-grabbing dictatorships has no bearing on any of this, right?
Supposedly the ATT “does not aim to impede or interfere with the lawful ownership and use of weapons,” according to the U.N.’s Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) program. But in a paper prepared by CASA, the actual intention couldn’t be more clear:
Sunday, July 1, 2012
The 2nd Amendment and Obama Care
By JW Ross
While those in favor of Obama Care celebrate its confirmation by SCOTUS and those who were against it lick their wounds, both miss the real issue raised by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruling . . .which is that, for the first time in American history, Congress can tax the public not only to raise revenue but also to formulate social policy under a very broad definition of public health.
If you read the Obama Care Bill you will note that it is only partly about what we would all agree is related to health care, ie, doctors fees, coverage of the poor, previous ailments, etc. Written deep into the text are laws that enable unelected bureaucrats to regulate (by taxation) just about anything they wish without any oversight if they deem it as a health issue - anything under the categories of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is fair game, not just obvious health related products like cigarettes.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
No Right to Bear Arms . . . Blood-Soaked Streets
By Louis J Beradi
Illinois stands alone in two categories: the city with the most blood-soaked streets and the only state that denies the right to keep and bear arms.
I would like to point out the obvious fact that Chicago has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the country, yet criminals, for some reason, do not seem to obey those laws. Criminals by definition do not obey laws.
The letter writer takes the position that because criminals commit crimes with firearms, Illinois is justified in denying law-abiding citizens their Second Amendment rights. Let me extend his logic to other rights. Because some people abuse their First Amendment right of free speech by practicing hate speech, we are justified in prohibiting him from ever writing another letter to the editor and he must close down his blog forever.
Law-abiding Americans should never be denied basic constitutional rights because criminals abuse those rights.
The letter writer points out that Illinois stands alone in denying its citizens the basic human right of self-defense because otherwise we would have blood-soaked streets. Let me point out two truths: 1. Every state that passed right-to-carry legislation, despite predictions to the contrary, saw violent crime either go down or remain the same. 2. Every Monday morning, the Tribune tells us that the streets are already soaked with blood and it is only getting worse.
The Chicago anti-gun policies have proven to be a deadly failure and it is time to join the other 49 states in the 21st century.
Letter to the Editor - Chicago Tribune
Illinois stands alone in two categories: the city with the most blood-soaked streets and the only state that denies the right to keep and bear arms.
I would like to point out the obvious fact that Chicago has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the country, yet criminals, for some reason, do not seem to obey those laws. Criminals by definition do not obey laws.
The letter writer takes the position that because criminals commit crimes with firearms, Illinois is justified in denying law-abiding citizens their Second Amendment rights. Let me extend his logic to other rights. Because some people abuse their First Amendment right of free speech by practicing hate speech, we are justified in prohibiting him from ever writing another letter to the editor and he must close down his blog forever.
Law-abiding Americans should never be denied basic constitutional rights because criminals abuse those rights.
The letter writer points out that Illinois stands alone in denying its citizens the basic human right of self-defense because otherwise we would have blood-soaked streets. Let me point out two truths: 1. Every state that passed right-to-carry legislation, despite predictions to the contrary, saw violent crime either go down or remain the same. 2. Every Monday morning, the Tribune tells us that the streets are already soaked with blood and it is only getting worse.
The Chicago anti-gun policies have proven to be a deadly failure and it is time to join the other 49 states in the 21st century.
Letter to the Editor - Chicago Tribune
Thursday, June 7, 2012
People's Republic of China Bashes U.S. 2nd Amendment as Human Rights Violation
by John Haughey
According to the faceless, monolithic regime that rules the People’s Republic of China, the United States is a flagrant abuser of human rights because its Second Amendment allows ordinary rank-and-file citizens to bear arms.
The Orwellian irony of criticizing Americans’ constitutional guarantee of unalienable gun rights as a human rights violation elevates hyperbole to new levels of looking-glass blatherspeak.
The PRC issued a report entitled “Human Rights Record of the United States in 2011,” a day after the U.S. State Department published its annual update on human rights abuses in mainland China by the Communist leadership, which regularly "disappears" critics, prohibits free exercise of religion, tortures dissidents and their families, forces women to have abortions to enforce its "one-child policy," censors the Internet, harvests body organs from opponents, and on and on.
Those aren't human rights violations by China's standards, but your Second Amendment right to own a weapon is.
“The United States prioritizes the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens' lives and personal security and exercises lax firearm possession control, causing rampant gun ownership,” the report says. “The U.S. people hold between 35 percent and 50 percent of the world's civilian-owned guns, with every 100 people having 90 guns [and] 47 percent of American adults reported that they had a gun.”
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Chairman Alan Gottlieb called the Chinese "a laughing stock."
“Perhaps what offends them most is that our Second Amendment was authored to prevent this country from going down the same road toward totalitarianism that rulers in the People’s Republic have embraced," Gottlieb said. "We are not like China, and we will never be like China so long as American citizens retain their right to keep and bear arms, and they know it.”
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Before the 2nd Amendment -- GOD
By AWR Hawkins - May 6, 2012
A recent article in The New Yorker titled “American Battleground,” by Harvard’s Jill Lepore, has been gnawing at me ever since I critiqued it last week for The Daily Caller.
As I wrote then, it is a convoluted piece of quasi-academic work that is intended to make gun owners question the founders’ position on private gun ownership and, if possible, open 21st-century American minds to the idea of more gun control.
Lepore does this via subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on the Second Amendment throughout the article. By attacking the Second Amendment, she hopes to somehow convince us that we really don’t have an individual right to keep and bear arms. Rather, we were only intended to have a right to form militias to use guns in that capacity when emergencies arise.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Does a civilized society really need a 2nd Amendment?
By Bryan Hyde on April 20, 2012
A number of questions are being raised following the highly publicized Florida shooting case in which a neighborhood watch member shot and killed a young man. As is the case in most highly sensationalized stories, a great deal of effort is being put into placing the blame in a politically advantageous manner.
Race baiters have been quick to blame racism while gun control advocates are blaming easy access to firearms and laws that don’t require a person to flee before using deadly force in self-defense. Tragedy too often spells opportunity for those who wish to draw attention to either themselves or their pet causes.
But beyond the political posturing, there is a valid question raised by the incident: Do firearms in the hands of private citizens still have a place in civilized society?
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Why a Nation Arms Itself - 2nd Amendment
by Patrick J. Buchanan
With the shooting death of Trayvon Martin by a neighborhood watch volunteer who was legally carrying a 9-millimeter handgun, the familiar wail has arisen from our cultural and media elite:
America has too many guns!
"Open carry" and "concealed carry" laws should be repealed.
Florida's "Stand-your-ground" law, replicated in two dozen states, threatens to turn America into the Tombstone of Doc Hiday and Wyatt Earp. This is insane!
The United Nations agrees. This year, the world body takes up the global control of firearms, including small arms in the hands of citizens.
According to Sen. Rand Paul, the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty" will almost surely mandate tougher licensing requirements to own a gun, require the confiscation and destruction of unauthorized civilian firearms, call for a ban on the trade, sale and private ownership of semi-automatic weapons, and create an international gun registry.
No more Colt .45s in the top drawer or M-1 rifles in the closet.
With the shooting death of Trayvon Martin by a neighborhood watch volunteer who was legally carrying a 9-millimeter handgun, the familiar wail has arisen from our cultural and media elite:
America has too many guns!
"Open carry" and "concealed carry" laws should be repealed.
Florida's "Stand-your-ground" law, replicated in two dozen states, threatens to turn America into the Tombstone of Doc Hiday and Wyatt Earp. This is insane!
The United Nations agrees. This year, the world body takes up the global control of firearms, including small arms in the hands of citizens.
According to Sen. Rand Paul, the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty" will almost surely mandate tougher licensing requirements to own a gun, require the confiscation and destruction of unauthorized civilian firearms, call for a ban on the trade, sale and private ownership of semi-automatic weapons, and create an international gun registry.
No more Colt .45s in the top drawer or M-1 rifles in the closet.
Friday, March 23, 2012
2nd Amendment -- Last Frontier
By Glen Wunderlich
Courts Split on Right to Carry Firearms Outside the Home
Unquestionably the hottest issue in Second Amendment litigation today is whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry firearms outside the home for personal protection—and if so, what might be the limits on that right. Until recently, far too many courts have wrongly claimed that because the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago only struck down bans on handgun possession in the home, that’s all there is to the Second Amendment.
Now, there are signs that this resistance is weakening. In a big win for gun owners’ rights in Maryland, on March 5, a federal judge ruled in the case of Woollard v. Sheridan that a key provision of the state’s gun laws is unconstitutional. Judge Benson Everett Legg declared that Maryland’s requirement for a “good and substantial reason” to obtain a concealed-carry permit violates the Second Amendment protection of the right to keep and bear arms. Though this is not an NRA-funded case, both the result and the reasoning give hope for future progress on the issue.
“The Court finds that the right to bear arms is not limited to the home,” Judge Legg wrote in his 23-page ruling. “In addition to self-defense, the right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment’s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and ‘self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be.’’
Judge Legg added, “A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”
From www.thinkingafield.org and the NRA
Courts Split on Right to Carry Firearms Outside the Home
Unquestionably the hottest issue in Second Amendment litigation today is whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry firearms outside the home for personal protection—and if so, what might be the limits on that right. Until recently, far too many courts have wrongly claimed that because the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago only struck down bans on handgun possession in the home, that’s all there is to the Second Amendment.
Now, there are signs that this resistance is weakening. In a big win for gun owners’ rights in Maryland, on March 5, a federal judge ruled in the case of Woollard v. Sheridan that a key provision of the state’s gun laws is unconstitutional. Judge Benson Everett Legg declared that Maryland’s requirement for a “good and substantial reason” to obtain a concealed-carry permit violates the Second Amendment protection of the right to keep and bear arms. Though this is not an NRA-funded case, both the result and the reasoning give hope for future progress on the issue.
“The Court finds that the right to bear arms is not limited to the home,” Judge Legg wrote in his 23-page ruling. “In addition to self-defense, the right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment’s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and ‘self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be.’’
Judge Legg added, “A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”
From www.thinkingafield.org and the NRA
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Individual or Collective Right – A brief history of the 2nd Amendment
by Gary Wood
Today we are struggling with people who believe the right to keep and bear arms is somehow a collective right, tied to militia membership, and not an individual natural right. This false assumption is based on today’s understanding and rhetoric. We also have the ambiguous 1939 Supreme Court case, U.S. vs. Miller that significantly fails to embrace the founding generation’s intent. The other area we have is the 2nd Amendment’s preamble that some point to as a reason to support the collective, militia tied concept. Yet history and understanding of bearing arms teaches us what is really the intent – the right to keep and bear arms is an individual natural right!
One key to understanding any rights found in what we know of as the Bill of Rights is the deep tie to our English roots, as a country. The colonial citizens were mostly English citizens serving under the Crown with guidance from the Parliament. Of course, self-rule was also deep rooted due to the fact colonies were separated from England by a little thing called the Atlantic Ocean. The colonists became very independent and felt extremely competent to legislate their daily lives.
Come with me on a swing back in time, before the 17th and 18th centuries, before 1689 when the English Bill of Rights came into existence…back to a time when it was not a right to bear arms…not a right at all but rather a requirement. Our first stop takes us back to the 9th Century under Alfred the Great. As Scott Bradley reminds us “…all of his peoplewere required to be armed with personal weapons and were subject to perform in the defense of the nation.”
Today we are struggling with people who believe the right to keep and bear arms is somehow a collective right, tied to militia membership, and not an individual natural right. This false assumption is based on today’s understanding and rhetoric. We also have the ambiguous 1939 Supreme Court case, U.S. vs. Miller that significantly fails to embrace the founding generation’s intent. The other area we have is the 2nd Amendment’s preamble that some point to as a reason to support the collective, militia tied concept. Yet history and understanding of bearing arms teaches us what is really the intent – the right to keep and bear arms is an individual natural right!
One key to understanding any rights found in what we know of as the Bill of Rights is the deep tie to our English roots, as a country. The colonial citizens were mostly English citizens serving under the Crown with guidance from the Parliament. Of course, self-rule was also deep rooted due to the fact colonies were separated from England by a little thing called the Atlantic Ocean. The colonists became very independent and felt extremely competent to legislate their daily lives.
Come with me on a swing back in time, before the 17th and 18th centuries, before 1689 when the English Bill of Rights came into existence…back to a time when it was not a right to bear arms…not a right at all but rather a requirement. Our first stop takes us back to the 9th Century under Alfred the Great. As Scott Bradley reminds us “…all of his peoplewere required to be armed with personal weapons and were subject to perform in the defense of the nation.”
Monday, March 19, 2012
2nd Amendment - Right-to-carry lowers violent crime
By John R. Lott Jr.
Among peer-reviewed national studies by criminologists and economists, 18 find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, 10 claim no effect, and just one claims one type of crime temporarily increases slightly. The possibility that permit holders might lead to more crime is easily evaluated by looking at how incredibly law-abiding they are, with them losing their permits for any firearms-related violations (usually trivial ones) at hundredths or thousandths of 1 percentage point.
Forty-one states currently have right-to-carry laws where permits are based on objective criteria, such as passing a criminal background check. These laws have worked well — so well that no state has chosen to repeal the law or even held legislative hearings to reconsider it.
Baltimore Sun Opinion
Among peer-reviewed national studies by criminologists and economists, 18 find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, 10 claim no effect, and just one claims one type of crime temporarily increases slightly. The possibility that permit holders might lead to more crime is easily evaluated by looking at how incredibly law-abiding they are, with them losing their permits for any firearms-related violations (usually trivial ones) at hundredths or thousandths of 1 percentage point.
Forty-one states currently have right-to-carry laws where permits are based on objective criteria, such as passing a criminal background check. These laws have worked well — so well that no state has chosen to repeal the law or even held legislative hearings to reconsider it.
Baltimore Sun Opinion
Friday, March 9, 2012
2nd Amendment - Colleges find ways to foil pro-gun rulings
By Valerie Richardson
DENVER Courts are ruling in favor of allowing those with concealed-carry permits to bring their handguns on campus, but universities are figuring out ways to keep the guns out.
Gun rights advocates recently notched major legal victories in Colorado and Oregon, with courts in both states agreeing that university policies banning firearms on campus must defer to state laws allowing permit holders to carry concealed handguns.
In response, however, university officials in Oregon and Virginia have enacted policies allowing concealed carry on campus but not in buildings, including classrooms, dormitories, event centers and dining halls.
The result is that permit holders may do little more than walk across campus with their handguns, an outcome that circumvents the intent of the court decisions, critics say.
DENVER Courts are ruling in favor of allowing those with concealed-carry permits to bring their handguns on campus, but universities are figuring out ways to keep the guns out.
Gun rights advocates recently notched major legal victories in Colorado and Oregon, with courts in both states agreeing that university policies banning firearms on campus must defer to state laws allowing permit holders to carry concealed handguns.
In response, however, university officials in Oregon and Virginia have enacted policies allowing concealed carry on campus but not in buildings, including classrooms, dormitories, event centers and dining halls.
The result is that permit holders may do little more than walk across campus with their handguns, an outcome that circumvents the intent of the court decisions, critics say.
Monday, March 5, 2012
2nd Amendment -- Well Regulated Militias in the Colonies
By Prof. Joerg W. Knipprath
When Paul Revere and his companions alerted the Massachusetts countryside of the movement of British troops, he warned his fellow-British subjects, “The Regulars are coming out.” In contrast to those troops, with their standard drill, formations, equipment, and armament, the Patriot combatants at Lexington and Concord (as well as Revere himself) were “Minutemen,” a lightly-armed, organized rapid-response component of the colonial militia. As all such militias at the time, they were “irregulars,” though the quality of the Minutemen’s equipment and training was superior to that of the militia as a whole. The distinction between such organized parts and the general militia was continued by the states, and, beginning in 1792, in the second federal Militia Act. It is a distinction that, despite changes in the nature of the militia concept, is preserved in current law.
When Paul Revere and his companions alerted the Massachusetts countryside of the movement of British troops, he warned his fellow-British subjects, “The Regulars are coming out.” In contrast to those troops, with their standard drill, formations, equipment, and armament, the Patriot combatants at Lexington and Concord (as well as Revere himself) were “Minutemen,” a lightly-armed, organized rapid-response component of the colonial militia. As all such militias at the time, they were “irregulars,” though the quality of the Minutemen’s equipment and training was superior to that of the militia as a whole. The distinction between such organized parts and the general militia was continued by the states, and, beginning in 1792, in the second federal Militia Act. It is a distinction that, despite changes in the nature of the militia concept, is preserved in current law.
Monday, February 27, 2012
2nd Amendment -- President's Plan to Challenge New Gun Rights
By JW Ross
To 2nd Amendment supporters who thought that the recent Supreme Court's decision (specifically Heller and McDonald v. Chicago) was the final word regarding their "right to bear arms", a recent ruling by a Federal judge will prove troublesome.
The judge who has the support of the White House and DOJ has ruled inexplicably that the recent Supreme Court decision does not grant licensed gun owners the right to carry their guns in public. Although this seems counter to the "intent" of the ruling by the highest court in the land, the issue remains in question because the Supreme Court justices were not explicit on the issue of "bearing" arms.
Watcher feel that the White House is setting the stage with this Federal judge's ruling for another court test during President Obama's second term, when he will very likely have the opportunity to replace at least two retiring court justices with more liberal appointees. New appointees will undoubtedly sway the present 5 to 4 decision in favor of a strong 2nd amendment to a 5 to 4 vote in favor of renewing gun restrictions or the elimination of the right altogether.
In the meantime, it is expected that liberal judges will continue to throw up "smoke screen rulings" to thwart any serious changes to right to carry laws in major cities throughout the United States.
To 2nd Amendment supporters who thought that the recent Supreme Court's decision (specifically Heller and McDonald v. Chicago) was the final word regarding their "right to bear arms", a recent ruling by a Federal judge will prove troublesome.
The judge who has the support of the White House and DOJ has ruled inexplicably that the recent Supreme Court decision does not grant licensed gun owners the right to carry their guns in public. Although this seems counter to the "intent" of the ruling by the highest court in the land, the issue remains in question because the Supreme Court justices were not explicit on the issue of "bearing" arms.
Watcher feel that the White House is setting the stage with this Federal judge's ruling for another court test during President Obama's second term, when he will very likely have the opportunity to replace at least two retiring court justices with more liberal appointees. New appointees will undoubtedly sway the present 5 to 4 decision in favor of a strong 2nd amendment to a 5 to 4 vote in favor of renewing gun restrictions or the elimination of the right altogether.
In the meantime, it is expected that liberal judges will continue to throw up "smoke screen rulings" to thwart any serious changes to right to carry laws in major cities throughout the United States.
Federal judge severely limits Second Amendment rights
By Bob Barr
Over the last few years, the Second Amendment has experienced somewhat of a rebirth, thanks largely to a pair of Supreme Court decisions: District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.
In these seminal decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed the understanding of the Founding Fathers that there is indeed an individual right to keep and bear arms, a God-given right to protect oneself that is guaranteed to us in the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Cities with oppressive restrictions on guns, including the District of Columbia and Chicago, have been forced to at least recognize that they cannot simply deny citizens their right to possess firearms. At the same time, however, these cities continue to erect barriers to citizens seeking to exercise their rights.
Over the last few years, the Second Amendment has experienced somewhat of a rebirth, thanks largely to a pair of Supreme Court decisions: District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.
In these seminal decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed the understanding of the Founding Fathers that there is indeed an individual right to keep and bear arms, a God-given right to protect oneself that is guaranteed to us in the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Cities with oppressive restrictions on guns, including the District of Columbia and Chicago, have been forced to at least recognize that they cannot simply deny citizens their right to possess firearms. At the same time, however, these cities continue to erect barriers to citizens seeking to exercise their rights.
Friday, February 24, 2012
2nd Amendment -- Pure and Simple
By Ralph Glasser
The Second Amendment was written back in the 1700s and must be interpreted in the vernacular of that era. It can only be truly understood by studying contemporaneous expositions on the subject written by the men who actually signed the document.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Back in the 1700s, the term “well regulated” meant well trained or proficient. It had absolutely nothing to do with “regulation” in modern terms.
In fact, the independent clause of the sentence specifically disallows such modern regulation, in that the right “shall not be infringed.”
Since the “militia” was then defined as the “able-bodied men” in the community, what the Second Amendment really said in its original context is:
Freedom is secure only when able-bodied men in the community are well trained in its defense. Therefore, there shall be no encroachment on the right of the people to own arms and to carry them.
Clearly, U.S. citizens residing in Illinois have had their fundamental rights infringed for far too long.
From the opinion pages of SJ-R.com
The Second Amendment was written back in the 1700s and must be interpreted in the vernacular of that era. It can only be truly understood by studying contemporaneous expositions on the subject written by the men who actually signed the document.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Back in the 1700s, the term “well regulated” meant well trained or proficient. It had absolutely nothing to do with “regulation” in modern terms.
In fact, the independent clause of the sentence specifically disallows such modern regulation, in that the right “shall not be infringed.”
Since the “militia” was then defined as the “able-bodied men” in the community, what the Second Amendment really said in its original context is:
Freedom is secure only when able-bodied men in the community are well trained in its defense. Therefore, there shall be no encroachment on the right of the people to own arms and to carry them.
Clearly, U.S. citizens residing in Illinois have had their fundamental rights infringed for far too long.
From the opinion pages of SJ-R.com
Friday, January 20, 2012
Does the 2nd Amendment protect "right to bear arms" outside the home?
January 2, 2012
NRA will appeal yesterday’s decision by a federal court in Texas, which held that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect any right to keep or bear arms outside the home.
The decision, handed down by U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings of the Northern District of Texas, came in the case of Jennings v. McCraw, in which a group of law-abiding 18- to 20-year old adults challenged the state law prohibiting issuance of concealed handgun licenses to persons under 21, who are treated as adults for virtually every other purpose under the law. (NRA is also a party on behalf of its members in this age group.) Judge Cummings ruled that it was unnecessary to address the state’s discrimination against young adults because “the right to carry a handgun outside of the home … seems to be beyond the scope of the core Second Amendment concern articulated in Heller [v. District of Columbia].”
NRA will appeal yesterday’s decision by a federal court in Texas, which held that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect any right to keep or bear arms outside the home.
The decision, handed down by U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings of the Northern District of Texas, came in the case of Jennings v. McCraw, in which a group of law-abiding 18- to 20-year old adults challenged the state law prohibiting issuance of concealed handgun licenses to persons under 21, who are treated as adults for virtually every other purpose under the law. (NRA is also a party on behalf of its members in this age group.) Judge Cummings ruled that it was unnecessary to address the state’s discrimination against young adults because “the right to carry a handgun outside of the home … seems to be beyond the scope of the core Second Amendment concern articulated in Heller [v. District of Columbia].”
Friday, December 30, 2011
2nd Amendment and Foreign States
By Brian Palmer - Courtesy of Slate.com
Do any foreign states guarantee the right to keep and bear arms like we do in the United States?
Yes. Mexico, Haiti, and Guatemala all enshrine the right to pack heat in their constitutions. Guatemala's Article 38 is the only one that's as broad as our Second Amendment (it guarantees "the right of possession of arms for personal use"). Article 10 of the Mexican constitution and Article 268-1 of Haiti's constitution limit the right to the confines of the home and allow the government to pass laws significantly restricting ownership. Mexicans, for example, are supposed to get a permit, renewable every year, from the military, and all firearms must be registered. (The law is widely ignored. Only 4,300 licenses have been issued for Mexico's 105 million people.) Handguns must be .380 caliber or less, shotguns can't be greater than 12 gauge, and rifles must be .30 caliber or smaller.
A constitutional provision doesn't necessarily guarantee easy access to firearms or a country full of gun enthusiasts. While the United States has 90 guns per 100 people the highest ownership rate in the world Mexico has just 15, placing it 22 among the 59 countries for which data is available.
Do any foreign states guarantee the right to keep and bear arms like we do in the United States?
Yes. Mexico, Haiti, and Guatemala all enshrine the right to pack heat in their constitutions. Guatemala's Article 38 is the only one that's as broad as our Second Amendment (it guarantees "the right of possession of arms for personal use"). Article 10 of the Mexican constitution and Article 268-1 of Haiti's constitution limit the right to the confines of the home and allow the government to pass laws significantly restricting ownership. Mexicans, for example, are supposed to get a permit, renewable every year, from the military, and all firearms must be registered. (The law is widely ignored. Only 4,300 licenses have been issued for Mexico's 105 million people.) Handguns must be .380 caliber or less, shotguns can't be greater than 12 gauge, and rifles must be .30 caliber or smaller.
A constitutional provision doesn't necessarily guarantee easy access to firearms or a country full of gun enthusiasts. While the United States has 90 guns per 100 people the highest ownership rate in the world Mexico has just 15, placing it 22 among the 59 countries for which data is available.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
2nd Amendment -- Ignoring the "Will of the People"
By John Lott
President Obama keeps pushing for gun control. "I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar,” President Obama told Sarah Brady, the former president of the Brady Campaign, this past spring.
His push as been quiet but relentless.
Just this past week Obama signaled that he was going to just ignore two new parts of the 2012 Omnibus Spending bill. Although he signed the spending bill into law, he simultaneously issued a so-called "signing statement," a note that presidents have started attaching to legislation stating how they interpret the law they are signing or whether they believe part of it is unconstitutional.
Obama’s statement claimed that Congress couldn’t put restrictions on how he wanted to spend to fund lobbying for gun control and the National Institute of Health studies of gun control.
But why should the federal government use taxpayer dollars to pay for lobbying?
President Obama keeps pushing for gun control. "I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar,” President Obama told Sarah Brady, the former president of the Brady Campaign, this past spring.
His push as been quiet but relentless.
Just this past week Obama signaled that he was going to just ignore two new parts of the 2012 Omnibus Spending bill. Although he signed the spending bill into law, he simultaneously issued a so-called "signing statement," a note that presidents have started attaching to legislation stating how they interpret the law they are signing or whether they believe part of it is unconstitutional.
Obama’s statement claimed that Congress couldn’t put restrictions on how he wanted to spend to fund lobbying for gun control and the National Institute of Health studies of gun control.
But why should the federal government use taxpayer dollars to pay for lobbying?
Thursday, December 22, 2011
The 2nd Amendment’s Forgotten Clause
By Jim Pontillo
For those who lament America’s cultural evolution toward secular society devoid the moral absolutes that served our Founding Fathers and guided them with providential authority to set to parchment the most “progressive” government the world had seen, our national degeneration is viewed with sadness.
We find ourselves trying to reconcile cultural reality with factual reality where morality would suggest they both are congruent, and yet, increasingly we find truth has become more a component of personal whim than one of real life circumstance.
As a person who has spent his life in the business of manufacturing, where compensation is intimately connected to real output and production of goods, it is difficult to comprehend the esoteric idea that value and worth is somehow a nebulous concept that politicians can debate over. To exasperate this inability to comprehend, my company serves an industry which caters to the down to earth blue-collar man who more often than not is making his living as I do, by producing some product or service of value that he/she must sell in an open and free market.
“Customers” of our wares are often disparaged by the political class and by the main stream media as “dim”, “stupid”, “simplistic”, and my personal favorite, “red-neck”, where only such people of lowly station would be interested in obtaining and possessing such an artifact.
My firm manufactures handguns.
For those who lament America’s cultural evolution toward secular society devoid the moral absolutes that served our Founding Fathers and guided them with providential authority to set to parchment the most “progressive” government the world had seen, our national degeneration is viewed with sadness.
We find ourselves trying to reconcile cultural reality with factual reality where morality would suggest they both are congruent, and yet, increasingly we find truth has become more a component of personal whim than one of real life circumstance.
As a person who has spent his life in the business of manufacturing, where compensation is intimately connected to real output and production of goods, it is difficult to comprehend the esoteric idea that value and worth is somehow a nebulous concept that politicians can debate over. To exasperate this inability to comprehend, my company serves an industry which caters to the down to earth blue-collar man who more often than not is making his living as I do, by producing some product or service of value that he/she must sell in an open and free market.
“Customers” of our wares are often disparaged by the political class and by the main stream media as “dim”, “stupid”, “simplistic”, and my personal favorite, “red-neck”, where only such people of lowly station would be interested in obtaining and possessing such an artifact.
My firm manufactures handguns.
Happy 220th Birthday, Second Amendment!
On December 15th, 1791, 220 years ago, The United States of America adopted the 2nd Amendment along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:
- deterring undemocratic government;
- repelling invasion;
- suppressing insurrection;
- facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
- participating in law enforcement;
- enabling the people to organize a militia system.
Early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:
- deterring undemocratic government;
- repelling invasion;
- suppressing insurrection;
- facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
- participating in law enforcement;
- enabling the people to organize a militia system.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Media Silence Is Deafening - 2nd Amendment
By John Lott
Murder and violent crime rates were supposed to soar after the Supreme Court struck down gun control laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C.
Politicians predicted disaster. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty warned the day the court made its decision.
Chicago’s Mayor Daley predicted that we would "go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we'll settle it in the streets . . . ."
The New York Times even editorialized this month about the Supreme Court's "unwise" decision that there is a right for people "to keep guns in the home."
But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn't rise after the bans were eliminated -- they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate.
Not surprisingly, the national media have been completely silent about this news.
Murder and violent crime rates were supposed to soar after the Supreme Court struck down gun control laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C.
Politicians predicted disaster. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty warned the day the court made its decision.
Chicago’s Mayor Daley predicted that we would "go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we'll settle it in the streets . . . ."
The New York Times even editorialized this month about the Supreme Court's "unwise" decision that there is a right for people "to keep guns in the home."
But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn't rise after the bans were eliminated -- they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate.
Not surprisingly, the national media have been completely silent about this news.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
The Second Amendment: A Legacy to Our Children
BY da Tagliare
There is a war raging right now in the United States concerning the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Our socialistic leaders are pushing harder and harder to outlaw all possession of all firearms by private citizens.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is even using the United Nations and their Small Arms Treaty to supersede the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. President Obama has also been outspoken about his desire to see stricter nationwide gun control laws passed supposedly to help prevent crime and we all know what a crock of manure that argument is.
In addition to writing your congressmen and senators and contributing to gun lobby groups such as the NRA, one of the other things you can do to help support the Second Amendment is to teach your children and grandchildren to shoot and respect a gun. Start them as young as possible.
There is a war raging right now in the United States concerning the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Our socialistic leaders are pushing harder and harder to outlaw all possession of all firearms by private citizens.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is even using the United Nations and their Small Arms Treaty to supersede the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. President Obama has also been outspoken about his desire to see stricter nationwide gun control laws passed supposedly to help prevent crime and we all know what a crock of manure that argument is.
In addition to writing your congressmen and senators and contributing to gun lobby groups such as the NRA, one of the other things you can do to help support the Second Amendment is to teach your children and grandchildren to shoot and respect a gun. Start them as young as possible.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
2nd Amendment - Citizens as Sovereigns
By John Longenecker - Andrew Breitbart . . . BigGovernment.com
Gun owners often remark that they carry a gun because a policeman is too heavy. This is cute, but it makes the point. In this country, the citizen is supreme authority, and when a citizen is armed, the law is present. It is on our authority that we delegate to law enforcement powers we wish them to have in order to do the jobs we ask of them. In doing this, however, we have never surrendered the totality of our supreme authority as the Sovereign. It is this which is recognized by forty-eight states who affirm the armed citizen within their borders, and who respect the rights of visitors from other states to be armed.
Gun owners often remark that they carry a gun because a policeman is too heavy. This is cute, but it makes the point. In this country, the citizen is supreme authority, and when a citizen is armed, the law is present. It is on our authority that we delegate to law enforcement powers we wish them to have in order to do the jobs we ask of them. In doing this, however, we have never surrendered the totality of our supreme authority as the Sovereign. It is this which is recognized by forty-eight states who affirm the armed citizen within their borders, and who respect the rights of visitors from other states to be armed.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
2nd Amendment - Just Words on Paper
By Marc J Victor
I was recently asked to write an article which would be of interest to people who cherish the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution says, "…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Few people have more experience talking to others who cherish the 2nd Amendment than me. I am the only attorney who is regularly invited to speak to groups of people in Arizona who attend the huge Crossroads of the West gun shows about their rights and responsibilities as firearms owners. Indeed, I enjoy talking to people who cherish the 2nd Amendment, and I acknowledge, agree and respect the rights of free and responsible adults to acquire, possess and sell whatever weapons they peacefully obtain. I am far more concerned about the government bearing arms than I am about responsible citizens bearing arms.
I was recently asked to write an article which would be of interest to people who cherish the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution says, "…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Few people have more experience talking to others who cherish the 2nd Amendment than me. I am the only attorney who is regularly invited to speak to groups of people in Arizona who attend the huge Crossroads of the West gun shows about their rights and responsibilities as firearms owners. Indeed, I enjoy talking to people who cherish the 2nd Amendment, and I acknowledge, agree and respect the rights of free and responsible adults to acquire, possess and sell whatever weapons they peacefully obtain. I am far more concerned about the government bearing arms than I am about responsible citizens bearing arms.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Baseball Bats and the 2nd Amendment
By Chris Cox
If you want to see what a disarmed society looks like, look no further than England.
Thousands of angry, drunk, violent thugs running wild and stealing anything they can carry. Shopkeepers and homeowners crippled with fear, unable to defend their loved ones or their property. Innocent citizens forced to watch helplessly while their life’s dreams everything they worked so hard to build and acquire are carried out the door, or smashed to pieces, or burned to the ground.
Men, women and children forced to strip naked in the streets, while packs of criminals laugh and ridicule them before making off with their clothing.
If you want to see what a disarmed society looks like, look no further than England.
Thousands of angry, drunk, violent thugs running wild and stealing anything they can carry. Shopkeepers and homeowners crippled with fear, unable to defend their loved ones or their property. Innocent citizens forced to watch helplessly while their life’s dreams everything they worked so hard to build and acquire are carried out the door, or smashed to pieces, or burned to the ground.
Men, women and children forced to strip naked in the streets, while packs of criminals laugh and ridicule them before making off with their clothing.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Pennsylvania -- 'Deadly Force' and the 2nd Amendment
Castle Doctrine goes into effect -- August 27, 2011
Now in Pennsylvania, the Birthplace of the 2nd Amendment, anyone inside a "home" can use deadly force to protect himself or herself against an attacker or intruder who unlawfully and forcefully enters that home with the intent to do great bodily harm to any occupants.
The Castle Doctrine covers a dwelling (including porch, deck or patio), or residence (defined as any dwelling in which a person resides, temporarily or permanently, or visits as an invited guest) or occupied vehicle.
Now in Pennsylvania, the Birthplace of the 2nd Amendment, anyone inside a "home" can use deadly force to protect himself or herself against an attacker or intruder who unlawfully and forcefully enters that home with the intent to do great bodily harm to any occupants.
The Castle Doctrine covers a dwelling (including porch, deck or patio), or residence (defined as any dwelling in which a person resides, temporarily or permanently, or visits as an invited guest) or occupied vehicle.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
First they came . . . .
By JW Ross
First they came for the guns of the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the guns of the Catholics, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Catholic.
Then they came for the guns of the Protestants, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Protestant.
Then they came for my guns -- and there was no one left to speak for me.
First they came for the guns of the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the guns of the Catholics, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Catholic.
Then they came for the guns of the Protestants, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Protestant.
Then they came for my guns -- and there was no one left to speak for me.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Gun Registration: The Nazi Paradigm
Throughout history restrictions on the possession of weapons by citizens by governments, be they dually elected or tyranical, are nothing new and, in fact, date to ancient times. However, the inevitable consequence of restrictions is no better illustrated than by the plight of the Jews in WWII.
Gun Registration: The Nazi Paradigm
By Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D., J.D.
New research into Adolf Hitler's use of firearms registration lists to confiscate guns and the execution of their owners teaches a forceful lesson -- one that reveals why the American people and Congress have rejected registering honest firearm owners.
After invading, Nazis used pre-war lists of gun owners to confiscate firearms, and many gun owners simply disappeared. Following confiscation, the Nazis were free to wreak their evil on the disarmed populace - such as the Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto.
Gun Registration: The Nazi Paradigm
By Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D., J.D.
New research into Adolf Hitler's use of firearms registration lists to confiscate guns and the execution of their owners teaches a forceful lesson -- one that reveals why the American people and Congress have rejected registering honest firearm owners.
After invading, Nazis used pre-war lists of gun owners to confiscate firearms, and many gun owners simply disappeared. Following confiscation, the Nazis were free to wreak their evil on the disarmed populace - such as the Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Guns & Freedom of Speech
JW Ross - President - Birthplace of the Nation Foundation
I am the purveyor of www.2ndAmendmentPA.com. The site promotes the origins of the 2nd Amendment often known as the "Right to Bear Arms". The site has been up for a year and has tens of thousands of "hits" or responses. Based as it is in Mercersburg, it covers the historical origins of our 2nd amendment rights which were "born"on the Pennsylvania frontier in 1765.
Interestingly 80% of the "hits" on my site are from countries where liberty and the freedom of speech are severely restricted - countries like Russia and China. Each of these countries also severely restrict the individuals "Right to Bear Arms" today and historically. Citizens of these countries understand what we take for granted, and that is, without the 2nd Amendment . . . there is no 1st Amendment.
I am the purveyor of www.2ndAmendmentPA.com. The site promotes the origins of the 2nd Amendment often known as the "Right to Bear Arms". The site has been up for a year and has tens of thousands of "hits" or responses. Based as it is in Mercersburg, it covers the historical origins of our 2nd amendment rights which were "born"on the Pennsylvania frontier in 1765.
Interestingly 80% of the "hits" on my site are from countries where liberty and the freedom of speech are severely restricted - countries like Russia and China. Each of these countries also severely restrict the individuals "Right to Bear Arms" today and historically. Citizens of these countries understand what we take for granted, and that is, without the 2nd Amendment . . . there is no 1st Amendment.
Friday, July 29, 2011
The 2nd Amendment in a Nut Shell
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
U.S. Senate Stands with NRA in Strongly Opposing U.N Gun Control Efforts
Article from NRA - ILA 7/23/11
American Progressives, knowing that their chance of effectively repealing the 2nd Amendment is not likely in the near future, are increasingly turning to international law as a means to bypass the Congress of the United States and the Supreme Court. . .
For nearly 20 years, the NRA has worked tirelessly to oppose any United Nations effort to undermine the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners. The latest attempt by the U.N. and global gun banners to eliminate our Second Amendment freedoms is to include civilian arms in the current Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which will be finalized next year.
American Progressives, knowing that their chance of effectively repealing the 2nd Amendment is not likely in the near future, are increasingly turning to international law as a means to bypass the Congress of the United States and the Supreme Court. . .
For nearly 20 years, the NRA has worked tirelessly to oppose any United Nations effort to undermine the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners. The latest attempt by the U.N. and global gun banners to eliminate our Second Amendment freedoms is to include civilian arms in the current Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which will be finalized next year.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Save the Home of Your Gun Rights
Why Donate to Save the Justice William Smith House --
Save the Smith House, Inc., is dedicated to the preservation of the place where the Second Amendment was "born" and to the proposition that the Second Amendment (the "right to bear arms") is the keystone of our Liberty and the Republic.
So why does it matter that there is a place where Second Amendment was "born"? It matters because the critics of the "Right to Bear Arms" can deny the words on the Bill of Rights, but it is hard to look at "brick and mortar" and deny its existence. To anyone who has visited Independence Hall, the Alamo, Gettysburg, or the beaches at Normandy, this concept is easily understood. To be able to stand in a place and know that what they did there (to their extreme risk and peril), some 246 years ago, established the groundwork for one of the most important "rights" in the Bill of Rights.
It is one thing to read the 2nd amendment and its assertions, but it is quite another to stand where the very principles were argued and established.
What Will My Donation Be Used For --
Having purchased the property for the Justice William Smith House donations will be used to:
(1) Reconstruct the Justice William Smith House as it was in 1765 . . . groundbreaking is presently scheduled for Spring of 2012
(2) Secure adjacent space for a Visitors Center and 2nd Amendment Museum to house the artifacts taken from the house.
Who Am I Donating To --
Save the Smith House, Inc., is a non-profit corporation in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania. Its founders are benefactors, historians, and accomplished community business and tradespeople. The founders receive no salary. The Board of Directors are donors themselves, and 2nd Amendment advocates. They receive no salary. The non-profit corporation is subject to state and federal regulations. The corporation has applied for 501c3 charitable status.
Save the Smith House, Inc., is dedicated to the preservation of the place where the Second Amendment was "born" and to the proposition that the Second Amendment (the "right to bear arms") is the keystone of our Liberty and the Republic.
So why does it matter that there is a place where Second Amendment was "born"? It matters because the critics of the "Right to Bear Arms" can deny the words on the Bill of Rights, but it is hard to look at "brick and mortar" and deny its existence. To anyone who has visited Independence Hall, the Alamo, Gettysburg, or the beaches at Normandy, this concept is easily understood. To be able to stand in a place and know that what they did there (to their extreme risk and peril), some 246 years ago, established the groundwork for one of the most important "rights" in the Bill of Rights.
It is one thing to read the 2nd amendment and its assertions, but it is quite another to stand where the very principles were argued and established.
What Will My Donation Be Used For --
Having purchased the property for the Justice William Smith House donations will be used to:
(1) Reconstruct the Justice William Smith House as it was in 1765 . . . groundbreaking is presently scheduled for Spring of 2012
(2) Secure adjacent space for a Visitors Center and 2nd Amendment Museum to house the artifacts taken from the house.
Who Am I Donating To --
Save the Smith House, Inc., is a non-profit corporation in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania. Its founders are benefactors, historians, and accomplished community business and tradespeople. The founders receive no salary. The Board of Directors are donors themselves, and 2nd Amendment advocates. They receive no salary. The non-profit corporation is subject to state and federal regulations. The corporation has applied for 501c3 charitable status.
Sons of the Revolution -- Liberty Poles
Liberty Poles
by JW Ross
As the colonists grew weary of the increasing efforts by the Crown to forcefully quell their independence, groups like the Sons of Liberty (sometimes later called Sons of the Revolution) began meeting in town squares in open definace of British authorities.
An organization started by Samuel Adams in 1765 to protest British taxes, their membership grew rapidly in the colonies. The gatherings were often held under a large tree, which were present in most village greens, and these came to be known as "Liberty Trees". However, in towns that lacked a tree big enough, the patriots would erect a tall pole (sometimes over 100 feet high) instead, as a symbol of a Liberty Tree, which naturally, was then called a "Liberty Pole".
by JW Ross
As the colonists grew weary of the increasing efforts by the Crown to forcefully quell their independence, groups like the Sons of Liberty (sometimes later called Sons of the Revolution) began meeting in town squares in open definace of British authorities.
An organization started by Samuel Adams in 1765 to protest British taxes, their membership grew rapidly in the colonies. The gatherings were often held under a large tree, which were present in most village greens, and these came to be known as "Liberty Trees". However, in towns that lacked a tree big enough, the patriots would erect a tall pole (sometimes over 100 feet high) instead, as a symbol of a Liberty Tree, which naturally, was then called a "Liberty Pole".
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Sunday, July 17, 2011
...Let Them Take Arms
The "Right to Bear Arms" . . .or 2nd Amendment is one of the most discussed and contentious of all the amendments of the Bill of Rights. It is, in fact, the only amendment that contains not only the seeds but the actual instruments of the revolution itself.
Further, it gives real affirmation to Thomas Jefferson's quote . . .
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
It is for this reason, if no other, that the Government and its functionaries vociferously assail and obfuscate the text of this simple assertion. More, it is for this reason, and in the face of the perennial onslaught that its defense and affirmation is essential to the survival of the republic.
Further, it gives real affirmation to Thomas Jefferson's quote . . .
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
It is for this reason, if no other, that the Government and its functionaries vociferously assail and obfuscate the text of this simple assertion. More, it is for this reason, and in the face of the perennial onslaught that its defense and affirmation is essential to the survival of the republic.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
New Administration's Gun Restrictions Target Border State Citizens
Courtesy NRA - ILA- U.S. House of Representatives
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R Texas) today criticized the Obama administration's decision to impose new reporting requirements for gun sales in states along the U.S. Mexico Border. "It is the height of hypocrisy for the Obama administration to restrict the gun rights of border state citizens, when the administration itself knowingly and intentionally allowed guns to be trafficked into Mexico...This rule unfairly punishes citizens in Border States who have the right to purchase firearms to protect themselves and their families from dangerous drug traffickers and human smugglers."
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R Texas) today criticized the Obama administration's decision to impose new reporting requirements for gun sales in states along the U.S. Mexico Border. "It is the height of hypocrisy for the Obama administration to restrict the gun rights of border state citizens, when the administration itself knowingly and intentionally allowed guns to be trafficked into Mexico...This rule unfairly punishes citizens in Border States who have the right to purchase firearms to protect themselves and their families from dangerous drug traffickers and human smugglers."
Monday, July 11, 2011
"Right to Bear Arms" - It All Started Here
Frontier Mercersburg in 1765 was the "birthplace" of the right we now refer to as "the Second Amendment", or, "the right to bear arms". It was here that individuals for the first time, some would say divinely, embraced the link between "Life and Liberty". . . and struck the first blow for Freedom.
Historically the right to bear arms goes back even before our founding as a nation to the Glorious Revolution of 1689 when William III agreed to the English Bill of Rights. If one can look at revolution like a volcanic eruption in nature, you understand that often from the destruction come the seeds of new human values and beliefs. In this case the independence of the human spirit, the right to know God for oneself, and to trust your conscience was hard won in this revolution of the human soul.
One crucible begets the necessity for another and on the frontier in America the right to defend ones religious beliefs was becoming the right to participate in the decisions of government that impact my "self". Freedom of the soul was becoming freedom of the heart and mind. Smith's Rebellion began as an act they justified under the rubric of defending oneself because government had failed in its obligation to protect Life, Liberty and Property. This was the first assertion of this principle aimed directly at British Military Authority as well as the incompetent government of John Penn - anywhere in the colonies.
In the end, Smith's Rebellion was the first armed resistance against British Military Rule leading up to the American Revolution. It was the first American triumph over the best military force in the world. It was the first time upon defending oneself that Americans had proclaimed we can rule ourselves.
It would be ten years before the battles at Lexington and Concord.
Historically the right to bear arms goes back even before our founding as a nation to the Glorious Revolution of 1689 when William III agreed to the English Bill of Rights. If one can look at revolution like a volcanic eruption in nature, you understand that often from the destruction come the seeds of new human values and beliefs. In this case the independence of the human spirit, the right to know God for oneself, and to trust your conscience was hard won in this revolution of the human soul.
One crucible begets the necessity for another and on the frontier in America the right to defend ones religious beliefs was becoming the right to participate in the decisions of government that impact my "self". Freedom of the soul was becoming freedom of the heart and mind. Smith's Rebellion began as an act they justified under the rubric of defending oneself because government had failed in its obligation to protect Life, Liberty and Property. This was the first assertion of this principle aimed directly at British Military Authority as well as the incompetent government of John Penn - anywhere in the colonies.
In the end, Smith's Rebellion was the first armed resistance against British Military Rule leading up to the American Revolution. It was the first American triumph over the best military force in the world. It was the first time upon defending oneself that Americans had proclaimed we can rule ourselves.
It would be ten years before the battles at Lexington and Concord.
Digging for the Birthplace of the "Right to Bear Arms"
Soil from Mercersburg's Smith House searched for artifacts
By MARCUS RAUHUT Staff writer - http://www.publicopiniononline.com/
MERCERSBURG -- Standing atop a dirt pile in Mercersburg, historian Tim McCown believes he's on the spot where the American Revolution began.
After the Justice William Smith House was taken down piece by piece, it now awaits reconstruction at its new site, divided among several piles of brick, stone, wood and soil.
Supporters of preservation of the house say it is linked to the first settler uprisings against the British, years before the Boston Tea Party.
With McCown's help on Saturday, children sifted through the earth piles in search of pieces of the house's history.
"The American Revolution started in this dirt," McCown said, holding a piece of plate that was discovered.
By MARCUS RAUHUT Staff writer - http://www.publicopiniononline.com/
MERCERSBURG -- Standing atop a dirt pile in Mercersburg, historian Tim McCown believes he's on the spot where the American Revolution began.
After the Justice William Smith House was taken down piece by piece, it now awaits reconstruction at its new site, divided among several piles of brick, stone, wood and soil.
Supporters of preservation of the house say it is linked to the first settler uprisings against the British, years before the Boston Tea Party.
With McCown's help on Saturday, children sifted through the earth piles in search of pieces of the house's history.
"The American Revolution started in this dirt," McCown said, holding a piece of plate that was discovered.
Chappell Hill, Texas: Bank Encourages 2nd Amendment
By ARTHUR HAHN/Managing Editor - Brenham Banner Press
CHAPPELL HILL Any would-be robbers looking to walk into the bank here had best think twice.
There’s a new sign in town.
The sign, now prominently displayed on the bank’s front door, says, “Lawful concealed carry permitted on these premises. Management recognizes the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as an inalienable right of all citizens. We therefore support and encourage the carrying of licensed concealed weapons.”
Smith said he made the policy change to send a warning to potential robbers, and also to express support to Americans’ right to bear arms.
“We had the sign on the window, the red circle with the pistol inside and a line through it. And I started thinking, ‘We’ve got this no gun sign up and the guy (robber) can come in and do what he wants.
CHAPPELL HILL Any would-be robbers looking to walk into the bank here had best think twice.
There’s a new sign in town.
The sign, now prominently displayed on the bank’s front door, says, “Lawful concealed carry permitted on these premises. Management recognizes the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as an inalienable right of all citizens. We therefore support and encourage the carrying of licensed concealed weapons.”
Smith said he made the policy change to send a warning to potential robbers, and also to express support to Americans’ right to bear arms.
“We had the sign on the window, the red circle with the pistol inside and a line through it. And I started thinking, ‘We’ve got this no gun sign up and the guy (robber) can come in and do what he wants.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Illegal Aliens and the 2nd Amendment
Courtesy clovislegal.blogspot.com
Fifth Circuit: Illegal Aliens Have No Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms
The Fifth Circuit holds that "illegal aliens" are not part "of the people" as mentioned in the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. Strong concurrence and dissent by Judge Dennis.
This case seems bound for the U.S. Supreme Court and may be far broader than the specific issue (right to bear arms) addressed by the Court.
Fifth Circuit: Illegal Aliens Have No Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms
The Fifth Circuit holds that "illegal aliens" are not part "of the people" as mentioned in the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. Strong concurrence and dissent by Judge Dennis.
This case seems bound for the U.S. Supreme Court and may be far broader than the specific issue (right to bear arms) addressed by the Court.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Why the "2nd Amendment House" is Important!
Why the "2nd Amendment House" is Important!
By JW Ross
Why it matters where the principles of our "Right to Bear Arms" were first established! Why the origins of the 2nd amendment are important!
Because it matters to the Supreme Court and the lawyers who argue before them. . . in both of the recent cases, original intent and the history behind the "Right to Bear Arms" amendment were a critical part of the debate, and the decision. It matters in the same way the origins of the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence matters.
Why does it matter that there is a place where all this happened? It matters because critics of the "Right to Bear Arms" can deny the words on a page or in a book, but it is hard to look at brick and mortar and deny its existence. To anyone who has visited the Alamo, Gettysburg, or the beaches at Normandy, this concept is easily understood. To be able to stand in a place and know that what they did there (to their extreme risk and peril), some 245 years ago, established the groundwork for one of the most important "rights" in the Bill of Rights.
It is one thing to read the 2nd amendment and its assertions, but it is quite another to stand where the very principles were argued and established.
By JW Ross
Why it matters where the principles of our "Right to Bear Arms" were first established! Why the origins of the 2nd amendment are important!
Because it matters to the Supreme Court and the lawyers who argue before them. . . in both of the recent cases, original intent and the history behind the "Right to Bear Arms" amendment were a critical part of the debate, and the decision. It matters in the same way the origins of the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence matters.
Why does it matter that there is a place where all this happened? It matters because critics of the "Right to Bear Arms" can deny the words on a page or in a book, but it is hard to look at brick and mortar and deny its existence. To anyone who has visited the Alamo, Gettysburg, or the beaches at Normandy, this concept is easily understood. To be able to stand in a place and know that what they did there (to their extreme risk and peril), some 245 years ago, established the groundwork for one of the most important "rights" in the Bill of Rights.
It is one thing to read the 2nd amendment and its assertions, but it is quite another to stand where the very principles were argued and established.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Historic Smith House Saved - To Be Relocated - New Site Sought in Franklin County
By Len Barcousky, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
The William Smith House in Mercersburg will be taken apart piece by piece and relocated.
A history-loving physician has worked out a deal to save an 18th-century home in Mercersburg.
Paul Orange said Tuesday that the William Smith House will be taken apart piece by piece over the next several weeks and reassembled on a new site elsewhere in the Franklin County community in southcentral Pennsylvania.
The future of the building has been in question since the structure and land on which it stands were acquired two years ago by a local volunteer fire company. The MMP&W Fire Co., which has its headquarters and garages next door to the Smith House on Main Street, had plans to demolish the building and expand on the property.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
The William Smith House in Mercersburg will be taken apart piece by piece and relocated.
A history-loving physician has worked out a deal to save an 18th-century home in Mercersburg.
Paul Orange said Tuesday that the William Smith House will be taken apart piece by piece over the next several weeks and reassembled on a new site elsewhere in the Franklin County community in southcentral Pennsylvania.
The future of the building has been in question since the structure and land on which it stands were acquired two years ago by a local volunteer fire company. The MMP&W Fire Co., which has its headquarters and garages next door to the Smith House on Main Street, had plans to demolish the building and expand on the property.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Physician offers to move historic house in Mercersburg
By Len Barcousky - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A Franklin County doctor has offered to relocate the historic Justice William Smith House in Mercersburg.
"I have a love of history," Dr. Paul Orange said Monday.
He was reluctant to provide too many details of his proposal, but he said he was prepared to cover the costs of moving the two-story structure to a new location. Those expenses, including the cost of acquiring a suitable alternate property, could run as high as $100,000.
Dr. Orange has a family practice along Route 30 in Fayetteville, which is between Chambersburg and Gettysburg. He said he moved to the area in part because of its ties to important events during the Civil War. He is a graduate of Greensburg Central Catholic and St. Vincent College. After graduating from medical school at the American University of the Caribbean, he did his residency at Latrobe Hospital.
A Franklin County doctor has offered to relocate the historic Justice William Smith House in Mercersburg.
"I have a love of history," Dr. Paul Orange said Monday.
He was reluctant to provide too many details of his proposal, but he said he was prepared to cover the costs of moving the two-story structure to a new location. Those expenses, including the cost of acquiring a suitable alternate property, could run as high as $100,000.
Dr. Orange has a family practice along Route 30 in Fayetteville, which is between Chambersburg and Gettysburg. He said he moved to the area in part because of its ties to important events during the Civil War. He is a graduate of Greensburg Central Catholic and St. Vincent College. After graduating from medical school at the American University of the Caribbean, he did his residency at Latrobe Hospital.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
House of history: The clock is ticking on a remnant of the Revolution
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A crime is about to be committed in Franklin County and those who see it unfolding are powerless to prevent it.
The historic Justice William Smith House in Mercersburg is living history, a remnant of America's Revolution that has been standing since a band of settlers gathered there in 1765 to organize an attack on colonial rule, an event that preceded the Boston Tea Party by eight years.
A crime is about to be committed in Franklin County and those who see it unfolding are powerless to prevent it.
The historic Justice William Smith House in Mercersburg is living history, a remnant of America's Revolution that has been standing since a band of settlers gathered there in 1765 to organize an attack on colonial rule, an event that preceded the Boston Tea Party by eight years.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
When a RIGHT is WRONG
JW Ross
A thinking person can make a comparison between the pending construction of a Islamic Center/Mosque at Ground Zero, in New York City, and the pending destruction of the William Smith House, in Mercersburg, PA.
In both cases, the RIGHT of the Muslims or the members of the Fire Board to "construct" or "destruct" is largely supported.
But support for the RIGHT does not mean, in either case, support for the action. RIGHTS come with responsibilities. RIGHTS come with sensibilities. RIGHTS have a moral and ethical component. We have, in principle, the First Amendment RIGHT to "yell fire in a crowded theater", but society has, for the welfare of all, deemed it WRONG to do so. It is WRONG for the Muslims to build a mosque at Ground Zero. It is WRONG for the Fire Board to chose to destroy the historical legacy of the people of Mercersburg.
That said, the Muslims may prevail in their wish to build the Mosque and the Fire Board may prevail and demolish the Smith House. If so, both do so at their peril. Legal WRONGS committed against the ethical RIGHTS of "the people" are not soon forgotten, or easily forgiven.
A thinking person can make a comparison between the pending construction of a Islamic Center/Mosque at Ground Zero, in New York City, and the pending destruction of the William Smith House, in Mercersburg, PA.
In both cases, the RIGHT of the Muslims or the members of the Fire Board to "construct" or "destruct" is largely supported.
But support for the RIGHT does not mean, in either case, support for the action. RIGHTS come with responsibilities. RIGHTS come with sensibilities. RIGHTS have a moral and ethical component. We have, in principle, the First Amendment RIGHT to "yell fire in a crowded theater", but society has, for the welfare of all, deemed it WRONG to do so. It is WRONG for the Muslims to build a mosque at Ground Zero. It is WRONG for the Fire Board to chose to destroy the historical legacy of the people of Mercersburg.
That said, the Muslims may prevail in their wish to build the Mosque and the Fire Board may prevail and demolish the Smith House. If so, both do so at their peril. Legal WRONGS committed against the ethical RIGHTS of "the people" are not soon forgotten, or easily forgiven.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)