An American Warning Radio

December 2007 - Posts

• Not A Popularity Contest

  U.S. News and World Report's John Mashek has the honor of writing the most idiotic response to the Supreme Court's decision to take on the D.C. Gun Ban case.  Mashek says "gun zealots" shouldn't be surprised if the court upholds the ban.  Does he really think someone wanting to protect herself and her family against the criminals of D.C. is a "gun zealot?"  Has he ever met Shelly Parker, Dick Heller, or any of the other D.C. residents who have tried in vain to become legal gun owners?  You don't have to be a zealot to believe you have a right to defend yourself with a firearm in your own home, and that's what this case is about.  Mashek also claims that the NRA is "euphoric" over the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case.  He says, "The NRA and its fellow travelers want to make sure that there are guns, guns and more guns on America's streets, in D.C. and elsewhere."  Again, this is absolute nonsense.  The D.C. Gun Ban case is about one thing:  whether or not the government can forbid you from owning and using a firearm in self defense inside your own home.  That's it.  Mashek says, "The NRA argument has a gaping hole. It says citizens have a right to protect themselves with weapons at home. The problem is that many have no plan to keep those weapons locked up in homes." I've seen small game with better critical thinking skills than Mr. Mashek.  We're talking about people who are living without the most effective means of self-defense, and he thinks if the gun ban goes away they're all of a sudden going to become law-breakers?  Mr. Mashek, the District already has thousands of people who don't give a damn about the current laws and are illegally carrying guns.  They're called gang members, robbers and drug dealers.  And the D.C. Gun Ban hasn't done anything to reduce their numbers.  Finally, Mashek claims, "The Supreme Court should respect D.C.'s right to ban handguns, as a strong majority in the city feels that way."  Mr. Mashek must have read a different Constitution than the one I reference daily.  My copies don't have anything about individual rights being stripped away based on someone's "feelings."  I can't help but wonder if Mr. Mashek would like to see the Bill of Rights look more like "American Idol," and Americans could text their vote to see which Amendment goes away next.  That might work on TV, but I'd like to think that our inalienable rights aren't a popularity contest. Posted Tuesday, December 11, 2007 7:00 PM from NRANews Channel | 0 Comments

• Some Questions for John Edwards

  Former Senator John Edwards is running as a friend to gun owners.  But his rhetoric seems to change depending on his location.  He's put out a press release saying he "hunted when he was young and grew up in rural areas where owning a gun was part of a way of life.  He respects that way of life and believes that we can do two things at once: protect gun rights and promote gun safety." Yet a few months ago, Edwards was asked a series of questions from YouTube.  He was asked whether certain things in this country are rights or privileges.  And here's what he said: A college education, health care, a livable wage... all of these things are constitutional rights in John Edwards' world.  But owning a handgun?  Well, the former senator says that's merely a privilege.  So with this background, here are a couple of questions I'd like to ask John Edwards.  Do you believe all Americans have a right to defend themselves and their families inside their home? Do you believe that right should be limited to exclude the use of firearms? In your short career in the Senate, you opposed pro-gun legislation like the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, while supporting a renewal of the Clinton Gun Ban.  Yet you speak of protecting gun rights.  Name three things you've done as a politician to protect the rights of gun owners. I think John Edwards is taking a page from his former running mate's playbook.  John Kerry tried to sell himself as a friend to gun owners in 2004, just as John Edwards is doing today.  But that dog didn't hunt four years ago, and it won't in 2008 either. Posted Sunday, December 09, 2007 7:00 PM from NRANews Channel | 0 Comments

• Some Questions for Clinton

  I've already asked presidential candidate Barack Obama some questions about what the Second Amendment means to him.  But other candidates have also expressed vocal support for the Second Amendment while going after American gun owners. Hillary Clinton, for example, told the Des Moines Register, "I support the Second Amendment. Law-abiding citizens should be able to own guns... but I also believe strongly in smart laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists." Now, I could spend hours asking Hillary about her position on the Second Amendment and her treatment of gun owners, but this is a blog, not a novel.  So here are a couple of follow-up questions.  Hillary, do you think the law-abiding citizens of Washington, D.C., have an individual right to own guns in their own homes for their own protection?  Hillary, do you think the D.C. gun ban is a "smart law,?" Hillary, do you think your husband's gun ban, which lasted a decade and banned thousands of firearms based on purely cosmetic features, is another one of those "smart laws?" Hillary, so you agree with the position of your husband's administration that the second amendment is only a government right, not and individual right and there's absolutely nothing to prevent the government from confiscating all citizens firearms? The days of political candidates being able to duck and run on the Second Amendment issue are over.  It's time to find out what their real positions are, and I challenge every reporter who has access to Hillary to pose these questions to her.   Posted Thursday, December 06, 2007 7:00 PM from NRANews Channel | 0 Comments

• A Few Questions for Obama

  Presidential candidate Barack Obama sounded off on the Second Amendment recently, and based on his comments that rural Americans should be able to own firearms for hunting and self-defense, I have a couple of questions for the senator from Illinois. Do you believe there are other rights that apply to Americans in certain demographic situations?  For example, does the right to free speech exist only for those who make $50,000 a year or more?  Do you believe the Second Amendment is about hunting?  If so, can you point to a specific part of the text of the Second Amendment that supports your view? Do you believe the residents of Washington, D.C., have the same right as the residents of Keokuk, Iowa, to defend their homes with legally owned firearms? It's high time for the media to step up and ask the candidates these types of pointed questions when those running for office try and get by with the same old platitudes. If they won't, I will.  You can expect more questions for more candidates in the days to come.  Posted Tuesday, December 04, 2007 7:00 PM from NRANews Channel | 0 Comments

• Gun Control In Finland

  In the wake of a murderous rampage in Finland, gun control advocates there and throughout Europe are calling for more gun control in the country.  But what effect have strict gun laws had in Mexico? Or Brazil? Or England? Or Russia? Or South Africa? People like Rebecca Peters say that civilian ownership of firearms needs to be restricted in order to keep us safe. But everywhere you look, the evidence shows that even the worst gun control doesn't reduce the illegal trade in firearms, and the laws don't stop criminals from using their illegal guns. Look at South Africa, where civilian ownership of firearms has been legislated nearly out of existence. They had more than 19,000 murders last year. Does that sound like gun bans work?  Frankly, it's easy to call for more gun control in the wake of tragedy. It's much harder to push for real solutions. But until the gun-banners are willing to talk about what really works, they shouldn't express shock and surprise that, even in countries with tight gun control laws, the criminals aren't affected one bit. Posted Sunday, December 02, 2007 7:00 PM from NRANews Channel | 0 Comments