|
|
AN AMERICAN WARNING
Because you should know!
March 2007 - Posts
-
|
I've told you many times before about the animal rights extremists who seem to have no respect for the animals they're supposed to "protect."
For example, PETA, supposedly People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, kills more than 80 percent of the dogs and cats it takes in. Humane Society employees were recently caught on tape ignoring a dying seal in the Arctic while they filmed a fundraising appeal.
And the latest madness from the animal rights loonies comes from Germany, where activists are calling for a healthy four-month-old polar bear to be put to death.
Why? The cub was rejected by its mother, and the extremists say that the cub, housed in a zoo, should die because that's the way nature intended.
As hunters, we know all too well what can happen when wildlife populations go unchecked. We know that controlled hunting is essential to effective wildlife management. But this bear isn't in the wild, it's in a zoo. And the only reason to kill it is to satisfy the insanity of the animal rights extremists, who think that, because this bear has been raised by humans, it isn't "pure" enough to live.
You can be sure the animal rights crowd is upside down when they're the ones advocating killing an animal, and a hunter like me says it should live.
|
-
|
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is offended. They won't quite come out and say it, but the paper's editors are offended by you-and any other citizen who calls legislators to express their views.
It's no surprise that the Journal-Constitution opposes SB 43, a bill in the Georgia Senate that would allow employees with Right-to-Carry permits to keep firearms locked in their cars. In fact, the newspaper had predicted that the bill would never reach the Senate floor for debate.
But the Journal-Constitution was wrong ... again. In fact, thanks to the help of NRA members and gun owners all over Georgia, SB 43 will indeed come up for a full Senate vote. Much to the chagrin of the Journal-Constitution.
"We're told the NRA cut loose with a heavy round of robo calls over the weekend," the newspaper reported.
As if NRA members shouldn't have their voices heard. As if Georgia's gun owners don't have a right to call their state lawmakers.
Just like most of the anti-gun media, the Journal-Constitution can't stand the fact that NRA members actively participate in our democracy.
It may offend the media ... but we defend our freedom.
|
-
|
You know, for a bunch of people who swear they're not trying to ban guns, the gun control movement is promoting a lot of gun bans.
In Maryland, anti-gunners tried and failed to pass a sweeping semi-auto ban. In Illinois, anti-gunners are pushing a semi-auto ban and a ban on the .50-caliber rifle. In New Jersey, it's another .50-caliber ban. And in Congress, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's pushing for a semi-auto ban so all-encompassing that your favorite deer rifle or shotgun could soon be called an "assault weapon."
Back in the 50's, the term McCarthyism described the hunt for communists in America, both real and imagined. In 2007, McCarthyism is the quest to ban firearms and make life miserable for legal gun owners. This new McCarthyism won't stop until the U.S. looks like England, complete with skyrocketing crime, light sentences for crooks and helpless citizens trembling behind their dead-bolted doors.
The gun banners like to say they're just pushing for "common-sense gun laws." That's a lie.
In fact, the new McCarthyism defies common sense. It pushes for pointless gun laws that punish lawful gun owners and will never touch the bad guys. It bans firearms because they look "scary." It bans gun ownership because the anti-gun zealots think criminals pay attention to laws prohibiting them from owning a gun. It tries to reduce crime by turning America's gun owners into criminals.
Rep. McCarthy thinks she can get her gun ban passed. I say four million Americans are going to resist the new McCarthyism.
|
-
|
It might seem like a no-brainer for legislators, but I still want to thank all of the Texans who voted for the Castle Doctrine the other day.
The final vote was about what you'd expect from the Lone Star State... 133 legislators voting for the Castle Doctrine and only 13 voting against it. This makes Texas the 16th state to pass the Castle Doctrine, and the first in 2007.
When a thug breaks into your home or car or business, you've got a right to defend yourself. You shouldn't have to turn your back on the bad guy, you shouldn't have to try to retreat as a condition of self-defense. The aggressor is where he doesn't belong, not you.
It's your home, it's your car, it's your life.
Politicians around the country are working hard to stop the Castle Doctrine. A couple of legislators in New Mexico made sure it didn't get a vote in the House. Anti-gun politicians in Minnesota are doing their best to prevent it from even getting a hearing.
I don't understand how these people think. It baffles me why anyone would support laws that in any way give criminal intruders an upper hand in places they have no right to be. But that's exactly what most law requires with no Castle Doctrine in place.
So we'll keep fighting for the right of self-defense, especially in those states where a handful of legislators are blocking the will of the people. And come Election Day, we'll help those obstructionist politicians step down from office with the hard lesson that self-defense is a right, not a privilege.
|
-
|
The editors of The New York Times say they're all in favor of free speech. But they won't tell you they mean only their brand of speech, because they have no problem stifling speech they don't like.
Last week the Times published a staunch defense of a high school student who unfurled a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" while the Olympic torch passed by in 2002. The student was suspended from school, and the case made it to the Supreme Court.
New York Times editors strongly defended the student's freedom of speech and urged the Court to "... rule that [his] rights were infringed."
Now, I'm all for free speech. Individual freedom and liberty is what the NRA is all about.
But editors failed to mention that The New York Times was one of the most ardent supporters of a federal law that bans free speech prior to an election. Over and over again, while so-called campaign finance reform legislation was being debated in Congress, the New York Times called for passage of the bill that now prevents groups like the NRA from speaking out during an election. In fact, the Times favored making it a federal crime, subject to heavy fines and imprisonment.
So the Times would defend "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" ...but put NRA members in jail for political debate. That's not free speech. That's hypocritical censorship-and it's wrong.
|
-
|
I heard something amazing the other night on NRANews, and it demonstrates WHY it's so important to tune in each and every day.
The mayor of Cleveland, Ohio, recently said that he will challenge Ohio's new firearms pre-emption law, and he's instructed the Cleveland Police Department to continue to enforce the city's local anti-gun laws.
On NRANews.com, I heard the head of the Cleveland Police Patrolman's Association announce that he's told his members that they should disregard the mayor's order. Officer Steve Loomis says he's afraid the mayor's ordering his officers to break the law, and he won't do that.
Good for Officer Loomis. It takes a great deal of courage to defy your mayor and your chief, but it's the right thing to do if you believe you've been given an illegal order. Other mayors in Ohio have told their officers that they should stop enforcing these local ordinances, but the mayor of Cleveland appears hell-bent on forcing the issue on the brave men and women patrolling the streets.
These anti-gun ordinances don't do anything to make these cities safer, and if the officers can now focus their attention on REAL criminals committing REAL crimes, maybe we'll start to see Cleveland's crime rate go down.
In the meantime, the people of Cleveland should be grateful that their officers are willing to uphold the Constitution, even if it means crossing the local politicians, and gun owners throughout Ohio should be thankful that this story was told on NRANews, because you'll never see this in the local media.
|
-
|
Homeowners in Nashboro Village, Tennessee, are fighting mad, and I don't blame them one bit. The local homeowners' association passed a covenant that bans possession of firearms in the residential neighborhood.
Can you imagine?
As you might expect, opposition to the rule exploded with such ferocity that the neighborhood's property management company says the rule will soon be changed. But it gets even nuttier.
Under the new rule, gun ownership will be "allowed." But if a criminal breaks into your home and you defend yourself, the discharge of a firearm will be against the homeowners' association rules.
Give me a break. Homeowners' associations can do a lot of things, but they can't shut you up, they can't disarm you, and they can't mandate that you become a victim in your own home. Your rights can't be taken away by any petty tyrant or backyard bureaucrat.
I'm going to keep my eye on this case, and if that idiotic rule isn't wiped off the books soon, I'll let you know.
|
-
|
Some of the residents of Washington, D.C., never fail to amaze me. Specifically, I'm talking about the so called "enlightened class" of the District.
Nobody cares about the opinions of Southeast Washington single mothers on defending their families against drug dealers and crack addicts. No, instead we're treated to elitist opinions from people who live in high-rise apartment buildings with 24-hour security. And those opinions are almost always anti-gun.
Take the latest from Arthur Delaney, writing in The Hill. He says:
"Imagine if Capitol Hill's burglary bandit broke into your house.
In past instances where he’s been confronted by people at home,
he says, 'I'm from the Salvation Army,' and leaves.
A gun at home would be the difference between life and death,
all right. Do you really want to kill this guy?
Hill resident Gary Peterson was able to fend off a dangerous
armed intruder with nothing more than a frying pan."
So now Zany Delaney and other gun-ban zealots want you to gamble your life on the possibility that not all home invaders are violent; but if you do encounter a violent, armed intruder in your home, you don't need a gun. You just need the right to keep and bear pans.
Naive, irresponsible attitudes like these are one reason why many choose to live in the Commonwealth of Virginia instead of the District of Columbia.
And for Zany Delaney, here's a thought: Go right ahead and handle an armed intruder with your favorite Ninja Skillet Move. But what if he confronts your wife, your daughter, or an elderly relative?
Shame on anyone who'd consign the fate of loved ones to fairy tale notions of kindly armed intruders and 20-dollar self-defense cooking utensils.
|
-
|
There's an event taking place next month that strikes fear into the hearts of gun banners everywhere. Tens of thousands of gun owners will be getting together, celebrating America's First Freedom, learning more about their rights and how to get involved, and showing this country that gun owners are a powerful political force. It's the NRA's 136th Annual Meetings and Exhibits, and I want you to be there.
Every Annual Meeting is a huge event, but this year we've got more battles than ever taking place around the country. The Castle Doctrine, Katrina-related legislation, Right-to-Carry, bans on semi-automatic firearms and ending private sales of firearms at gun shows, and more. The Second Amendment is being attacked like never before.
That's why I want to see you in St. Louis. Browse acres of guns and gear at thousands of booths in the convention center, and enjoy the free Opening Celebration show, the Members Meeting, and the Members Banquet. You can also attend a grassroots workshop, panels on media bias and seminars on concealed carry, women's issues and lots of other topics.
You'll leave St. Louis ready to take on the anti-gun forces where you live, armed with knowledge and backed by four million of your closest friends.
So mark your calendar for April 13th, and get more information at NRA.org.
And I'll see you when the NRA meets in St. Louis!
|
-
|
Shame on New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He says U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other anti-gun lawmakers need to pass more gun control laws, and he's using the tragic deaths of two New York Auxiliary Police officers to shame them into taking action.
The New York Post quoted Bloomberg as saying, "The Democrats have said repeatedly that they blame the Republicans for no gun legislation. Well, now they're in charge. OK, stand up. And if not, I'm going to tell everybody."
Well, here are a few things Bloomberg probably won't tell you: The 4,800 Auxiliary officers who serve New York City are walking targets for thugs and madmen. They're unarmed, without vests, and wearing uniforms identical to those of the NYPD. Every time those brave men and women hit the streets, they're at risk of an attack, and there's nothing they can do to protect themselves. They're not even allowed to carry pepper spray on the job. A standard nightstick and a pair of handcuffs are the only tools these officers can have.
They don't need more gun control laws-they need some respect.
Mayor Bloomberg is trying to deflect criticism onto gun-control Democrats, but what about his responsibility for these officers' safety? He's sending them out to enforce the law, but he's treating them more like cannon fodder. Protect them with vests and arm them with the tools they need to defend themselves and others.
But if Bloomberg is so anti-gun that he thinks law enforcement officers don't need guns, then it's time to end the auxiliary officer program and rethink the safety of our men and women in blue.
And to rethink why people like Bloomberg ever win public office.
|
-
|
The NRA's been fighting the city of New Orleans for a long time now, trying to get the firearms seized by the city returned to their legal and rightful owners. But every day the city stalls, they're putting their residents at risk.
The city's homicide rate is estimated to be an incredible 96 murders per hundred thousand. To put that in perspective, in 2005 the national homicide rate was 5.6 per hundred thousand. New Orleans has done the impossible... it's made Washington, D.C., look like Mayberry in comparison.
We're fighting to get the guns back to their lawful owners in New Orleans because it's the right thing to do. We're standing up for the Second Amendment, but we're also standing up for the hundreds of people left defenseless by the city.
Can you imagine living in New Orleans without a firearm for protection? Can you imagine lying in bed at night, hearing the sirens come down your street, knowing that you could be next- and then remembering that the city still hasn't given your guns back?
We're fighting for a right, and we're fighting for freedom, but we're also fighting a city that prefers its citizens to be helpless against a growing tide of criminal terror.
Make no mistake: We won't stop until we've won.
|
-
|
Politicians in Massachusetts are trying to impose an unfair tax on gun owners. They want to slap a $25 fee onto every handgun sold in the state, with that money going toward researching spinal cord injuries.
Why are they targeting gun owners? The politicians say guns cause "large numbers" of spinal cord accidents, and that "gun owners tend to be affluent," so they can afford the extra fee.
That's baloney. According to the National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center, the number one cause of spinal cord injuries is automobile accidents. Car crashes account for nearly half of the spinal cord injuries in the U.S. The number two cause of spinal cord injuries is falls. Acts of violence, which include gun and knife and beating injuries, are third on the list-but only account for a little more than 10 percent of all spinal cord injuries.
So if they really wanted to target this fee fairly, they'd put it on all motor vehicles sold in the state. Then they'd put that fee on all ladders sold in Massachusetts. They can't single out legal gun owners in Massachusetts to make them pay for accidents caused by crashes and falls.
Fees and taxes are just another way they try to demonize guns and gun owners. It's hard enough being a gun owner in Massachusetts these days. This just adds insult to injury, and it's plain wrong.
|
-
|
You know what the anti-gunners say: If you're in danger, call 911 and wait for the police to arrive. I wonder what they'd say about a senseless killing in Fox Lake, Wisconsin, where a woman was being pursued by her husband.
According to a witness who called 911, the man followed the woman as she drove to the Fox Lake police station, and rammed her car with his. When she got to the police station, she ran inside. But no one was there.
See, the Fox Lake Police Department is closed on weekends. Emergency calls are routed to the local county sheriff, which works fine if you want the police to come to you. But if you go to the police station, you're not going to find anyone there to help.
Tragically, the woman was found unconscious and unresponsive in the lobby of the municipal building where the police department is located. She was pronounced dead at a local hospital. Her husband is now in custody.
None of this is the fault of the officers in Fox Lake. It's a simple fact that the police can't be everywhere at all times, and in some small towns that may mean they're not even at the station 24 hours a day.
But it's a sobering reminder that ultimately we're responsible for our own safety and protection. The police can't be our 'round-the-clock bodyguards, but they can be the first to find us dead. That's something you'll never hear from the gun-ban crowd.
|
-
The Washington Post set a new record for dishonesty by insisting that the D.C. gun ban-struck down in federal court last week- saves lives.
And you really have to admire the gall of the Post's editorial writers.
Instead of applauding the end of a D.C. gun ban that has left innocent citizens defenseless for decades, the Post had the audacity to suggest that the gun ban works!
And they called it "radical" and "dangerous" that the D.C. federal Court of Appeals would strike down the gun ban because the Second Amendment protects an individual right.
Radical? Dangerous?
What's radical is banning self-defense in a city with one of the highest crime rates in the nation.
What's "dangerous" is refusing to admit the truth that anyone with two eyes can see for themselves! The truth is, the D.C. gun ban is a failure that costs innocent lives!
Whose side is the Washington Post on? On the side of citizens who've been barred for more than 30 years from having a firearm to protect themselves- even in their homes?
Or on the side of the criminals, whose careers are easier thanks to a gun ban that disarmed their victims?
The Post calls it "unconscionable" that the NRA wants to "broadly reinterpret the Constitution so as to give individuals Second Amendment rights."
Well, I've got some news for the Post. The Constitution doesn't "give" anyone anything.
The Bill of Rights in the Constitution only affirms in writing that free people have certain rights -predating any government-and that those rights are off-limits to government meddling.
How would the Post react if the government wanted to take away their First Amendment right to freedom of the press?
Would they call it "unconscionable" if the ACLU tried to "broadly reinterpret the Constitution so as to give individuals First Amendment rights"?
The Washington Post better take a lesson from history. Around the world, down through the ages, when the right to arms comes under attack, freedom of the press is next.
If they want to protect the First Amendment, they'd better start recognizing the Second.
|
-
|
I'm ticked off at the Roanoke, Virginia newspaper. They did something so stupid, so irresponsible, so mind-numbingly idiotic that I don't know why anybody would choose to keep reading their product.
The Roanoke Times published an editorial about Virginia's Right-to-Carry laws, actually naming several local politicians and high-profile residents, and stating whether or not they had a Right-to-Carry license.
That was bad enough, but the paper went on to publish an online database of every Right-to-Carry holder in the state of Virginia, complete with home addresses! And they did it all while proclaiming the freedom of the press.
The paper even compared Right-to-Carry holders with convicted sex offenders, noting that Virginia State Police have a website where you can see where those felons live, but that nothing similar exists for Right-to-Carry licensees. The Times apparently sees no difference between a law-abiding permit holder and a criminal convicted of rape, child molestation or worse.
As you can imagine, gun owners let the paper hear their fury, and a day later the database was taken down. But the damage had been done. Who knows how many criminals started making a shopping list of homes where they could expect to find firearms and ammunition? Who knows how many would-be rapists and stalkers learned that their prey weren't on the list of Right-to-Carry holders? Who knows how many lives are in danger because of the arrogance of the Roanoke Times?
Every gun owner knows that with rights come responsibilities. We have a right to free speech in this country, but the Times ignored their responsibility to the people of Virginia when they published that information online. They should be ashamed of themselves, and I think it's high time Virginia joins other states that have passed legislation to keep Right-to-Carry information out of the hands of the media.
|
-
|
Yesterday I told you about Jackson, Mississippi, Mayor Frank Melton, who was wanted for parole violations after he pled guilty to illegally carrying a firearm.
I told you how Melton, a member of New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's anti-gun group, had tried to make life difficult for legal gun owners in Jackson with random searches.
Well, I'm pleased to tell you today that there are still good guys with guns in Jackson, and Frank Melton's not one of them. In fact, one armed citizen recently saved a stranger's life.
It happened Sunday afternoon. As unarmed citizens watched in horror, a man repeatedly stabbed his wife outside a busy Jackson store, then tried to set her on fire! Witnesses stood by, doing nothing. Cars drove by, honking their horns, but nobody stopped. Forty-two-year old Gracie Watson was going to die.
The vicious attack continued. One clerk at the store said the woman was stabbed over 20 times. Someone had called 911, but police hadn't yet arrived when an angel of mercy appeared on the scene. The anonymous gun owner pulled out his pistol and told the madman to stop. Then he held 42-year-old Henry Watson until police arrived. Once police were on the scene, the man left.
Gracie Watson is alive today because a good man had a gun. When nobody else would put themselves at risk, this man didn't hesitate to save another's life. I'd like to think stories like this would make anti-gun mayors like Frank Melton think twice, but I know better.
It's up to us to protect our Right to Carry, because anti-gun politicians never will.
|
-
|
I've told you about Jackson, Mississippi, Mayor Frank Melton before. He got elected on a "get tough on crime" platform, but it wasn't long before Melton decided it would be easier to go after legal gun owners instead.
He joined ranks with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, called for a ban on gun shows in Jackson, and decided to randomly stop cars in the city to search for "illegal guns." At the same time, Melton was warned that he was carrying concealed without a license, and eventually he pled guilty and no contest to several charges of illegally carrying a firearm.
That wasn't enough to get him booted from Bloomberg's anti-gun coalition. But a few days ago Melton was briefly jailed for probation violations.
I wonder what Mike Bloomberg will say now. After all, Bloomberg says he's only interested in going after criminals. If that's true, why would he welcome a criminal as part of his cabal of anti-gunners?
Politicians who think they're above the law will always try to dictate which freedoms you should be denied, but never themselves.
And most media are more than happy to be accomplices by not reporting these stories.
|
-
|
Even though the media's not covering the story, NRA is still pursuing its lawsuit against the city of New Orleans, Mayor Ray Nagin and those responsible for confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens in the chaotic days after Hurricane Katrina hit.
And we keep winning.
Our most recent victory came just a few days ago, when we received a check from New Orleans City Attorney Joseph Vincent DiRosa Jr. The judge in our case ordered the city to pay partial legal fees and court costs after finding the city in contempt of court for failing to meet the judge's deadlines.
It seems to me that the city and its attorneys aren't taking this suit that seriously. That would be a mistake. Lives were put at risk because of what the city did, and we're not going to back off or stop until these lawfully owned firearms are back in the hands of their rightful owners.
The money's nice, but a court victory will be even sweeter. And make no mistake, we will be vindicated. There's no excuse for what the city did, and we're going to hold them accountable.
|
-
|
The D.C. Court of Appeals has opened the door to repeal Washington, D.C.'s gun ban. In a decision handed down last Friday, the court said that the Second Amendment is indeed an individual right, and the District can't deny that right to residents simply because the District isn't a state.
The District had also argued that the Second Amendment no longer applies in 2007. Can you believe that? The good news is the D.C. Court of Appeals saw right through that stupidity. If the Second Amendment doesn't apply, what about the First Amendment? Are we just going to throw out or ignore the sections of the Constitution we disagree with? The overwhelming majority of Americans would say "No!" and that's what the Court of Appeals said as well.
In fact, the Court of Appeals ruled that the District's gun laws amount to "a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense" and they found the ban to be unconstitutional.
Yes, this is good news, but the fight is far from over. The District is sure to appeal this case to the Supreme Court, which can choose to hear or ignore it.
In the meantime, the gun-banners and gun-grabbers are going to fight harder than ever to go after your firearms. Be ready, be vigilant, and be active. Guarding your freedom takes work, and this is not the time to stand down.
|
-
|
New Jersey's called "The Garden State," but I'm starting to think it should be called "The Dr. Frankenstein Laboratory State," because it seems like every hare-brained anti-gun scheme gets a test run there.
Case in point: a bill in New Jersey to ban .50 caliber rifles. Yes, I know California was the first state to ban the .50 caliber rifle, but make no mistake: This is a new initiative by the anti-gunners to get similar laws passed around the country.
Of course, the gun-banners are opening fire with their misleading and often ignorant rhetoric. Assemblyman Reed Gusciora said the rifles could "cause major worries if they fall into the hands of criminal street gangs."
Does he really think the average gang member has $8,000 to spend on a rifle? Do you really think a gang member's going to use a rifle that weighs more than 30 pounds in his criminal activities? Don't be ridiculous.
This piece of legislative garbage doesn't have anything to do with gang members. It has a lot to do with demonizing a particular firearm and those who own it.
Assemblyman Gusciora says these rifles have no useful purpose. That's a more accurate description of the bill, not the gun.
|
-
|
Have you ever wondered why the NRA has been so effective across the country?
Yes, we have top-notch lawyers and lobbyists and field staff. But at the end of the day, we're effective because of you.
Dozens of groups over the years have tried to emulate the NRA, on the gun issue and on other issues. But if they forget that the real power is in the hands of the people, they fail.
That's why I was amused and pleased to see rock star Bono engage in a bit of NRA envy the other day. He was in Oakland, California, drumming up support for his "One Campaign," an anti-poverty organization.
He said, "Two-and-a-half million Americans have signed up to the One Campaign. We want to get it to four million by the presidential election in 2008. That will get us the same size as the National Rifle Association. That's where we want to be. We want to be the NRA for the world's vulnerable and the world's poor."
In other words, even Bono recognizes that the NRA is a powerful and effective voice for America's gun owners. He didn't say he wants to be the Brady Campaign or IANSA for the world's poor. He wants to be like the NRA.
Makes you feel pretty good, doesn't it? I wish the media felt the same way.
|
-
|
In one of the dumbest statements I've heard in a long time, Melvin Whitley of North Carolina thinks he's figured out Durham's violent crime problem.
This local anti-gun propagandist is the champion of a state proposal to require a permit to purchase ammunition. Why? Because, as Whitley said, "It's the bullets that are hurting us."
Want to go hunting? Better dig out your ammo permit to pick up some birdshot. Going to the range for target practice? Get in line for your ammo card to buy a few rounds.
Why? Because "it's the bullets that are hurting us."
Whitley calls his proposal a "no-brainer." I'll vouch for that... because it doesn't take much brainpower to figure out what a stupid idea this is.
Whitley must think murderers, rapists and armed robbers will line up at police headquarters to fill out their paperwork for a permit. Or maybe he thinks all those violent criminals, who get their guns and ammo illegally, will just run out of bullets and give up.
Whitley's notion is just plain stupid. But I've seen it before. Even some of the brainiacs who have served in the U.S. Congress have proposed ammunition bans, ammo taxes and ammo licenses. None of it makes any sense and, so far, the NRA has beat them all.
But what galls me the most about people like Melvin Whitley is that they ignore the truth. And the truth is, every time a convicted felon even touches a bullet, he can be put in prison for five years... per round! That's federal law.
So, before Whitley stands up and makes another idiot comment, maybe he should ask a simple question: How many felons in North Carolina have been convicted of possession of ammunition and sent away to federal prison for good?
That's the truth Whitley ignores.
|
-
My friend, the Second Amendment scholar and lawyer Dave Hardy, has written something you really should read. Dave exposes another self-appointed "outdoors writer" who's willing to sell out gun owners, and the NRA, using the jargon of gun banners who don camouflage. His name is Bill Schneider of the New West, and he takes nasty jabs at the NRA by parroting anti-gun catch phrases that are old to me, but must be new to him.
The sad thing is, this is more common than you think. We'd like to think the outdoors columns in our newspapers or magazines are written by seasoned hunters. But that's not always the case. There are some "outdoors writers" who don't care about hunting, who don't care about gun rights, and who hate the NRA.
So beware. If an outdoors writer is singing the praises of the anti-gun front group, he's no friend of gun owners.
If an outdoors writer says the NRA doesn't care about hunting, he's no friend of gun owners.
If an outdoors writer quotes an anti-gun group, he's no friend of gun owners.
You've gotta be careful these days. Anti-gun groups have learned to camouflage their true intentions, to the point of disguising themselves as concerned gun owners. But make no mistake, their agenda is the same. So even if some outdoors writers get duped into buying their lies, you don't have to.
|
|
|
|