|
|
AN AMERICAN WARNING
Because you should know!
July 2008 - Posts
-
|
The New England Journal of Medicine isn't too happy about the Supreme Court decision affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms. In fact, the journal has a new editorial out criticizing the decision. In it, three doctors write that "closer regulation promotes the public health." The doctors say that there is no constitutional impediment to any kind of "regulation" of firearms. And the doctors believe "logic tells us that fewer restrictions on handguns will result in a substantial increase in injury and death."
Let's take these three arguments one at a time. First of all, can you imagine doctors in charge of doling out First Amendment "privileges"? Perhaps a study from the CDC on the dangers of increased likelihood of heart attacks after listening to (or calling in to) talk radio shows? Americans would be outraged, just as they should be outraged at these doctors calling for restrictions on your Second Amendment rights as a matter of "public health."
The doctors misread the Constitution and the Supreme Court decision when they say there's no impediment to any kind of regulation of firearms. There's the little matter of "shall not be infringed," but there's also the Court's decision striking down D.C.'s gun ban.
And finally, logic does NOT tell us that increased gun ownership leads to increases in injury and death. As a matter of fact, accidental firearm fatalities have plummeted in this country, even while legal gun ownership has increased.
I have no idea how good these doctors may be when it comes to saving individual patients, but when it comes to diagnosing the Second Amendment, they're a bunch of quacks.
|
-
|
Can you imagine any major media company giving free advertising to the NRA? Let me tell you, it just doesn't happen. But in Philadelphia, Clear Channel Outdoors and Interstate Outdoor Advertising are giving more than 30 free billboards to the group Moms Against Guns. The group is using the billboard space to push for tougher gun-control laws in the state of Pennsylvania. The anti-gun group is also using the space to urge the election of anti-gun candidates.
I'm not surprised these media companies would give free advertising to a gun-control group. After all, for years we've known the media hates gun owners. Still, if I were a gun owner in Philadelphia, I'd take a look at what other companies use Clear Channel Outdoors and Interstate Outdoor Advertising. I'd contact those companies and let them know I won't be doing business with them until the anti-gun billboards come down.
|
-
|
A new survey says about two-thirds of Alabama residents are gun owners, and almost half are Right-to-Carry holders. Not surprisingly, Alabama's violent crime rate in 2006 was 425.2 incidents per 100,000 people, compared to 1,508.4 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the District of Columbia. Alabama's violent crime rate is also lower per capita than California, New York, and Massachusetts.
You'd think the mainstream media might take an interest in Alabama's relatively low crime rate compared to states with more gun control laws, but something tells me we won't see those numbers reported on the nightly news. Evidence that gun ownership and Right-to-Carry lowers violent crime? That doesn't fit the agenda of the mainstream media, even if it is the truth.
|
-
|
San Franciscans should be ashamed of their mayor, Gavin Newsome. In fact, if I lived in San Francisco, I'd be pushing for a recall election.
Last weekend, a two-time felon named Edwin Ramos allegedly killed Anthony Bologna and his two sons in a road-rage incident. Ramos was not only in this country illegally (which makes him ineligible to legally own a firearm), he's a two-time felon at the ripe old age of 21. Those two felonies came when he was a juvenile, but the city of San Francisco never referred the case to the federal government for deportation.
Rather than Gavin Newsome shouldering some responsibility for the city's lackadaisical attitude towards violent felons on the street, he decided to blame the nation's gun owners, saying:
"[The NRA is against] anything that restricts the opportunity for a guy who gets cut off in traffic from pulling out a handgun and almost assassinating an entire family, as was the case a few days ago in San Francisco, where three people were gunned down. That somehow that is appropriate and wonderful, and that person celebrated his freedom to carry a loaded pistol."
The NRA, it should go without saying, has always been in favor of strict enforcement of laws that punish the criminal misuse of firearms. We've always believed in ensuring convicted felons go to prison if they're caught with a gun. We, unlike Mayor Newsom, believe that laws should have meaning. Until the city changes its stance and insists that violent criminals are taken off the streets, then the residents of San Francisco will have to live and die with the consequences.
|
-
|
One of the results of the Heller decision, one that's not mentioned in polite company, is that the Supreme Court determined that for more than three decades, the city leaders in Washington, D.C., deprived residents of their constitutional rights. Think about that for a moment. For thirty-two years, D.C. ensured that the residents of our nation's capital had fewer rights than almost anyone else in the country. It's shocking and shameful to think about.
And with the deprivation of rights comes a lack of responsibility. How can you learn to be a responsible gun owner when the District wouldn't let anyone own a gun? Even now that the Heller decision's come down, the city leaders are working to ensure it will be as hard as possible to exercise your Second Amendment rights. Again, it's a shocking and shameful display of "leadership."
The NRA has always been our nation's leader in teaching safe and responsible gun ownership, and the residents of D.C. need our help. That's why today I'm seeking volunteers: NRA-certified firearms instructors who are willing and ready to go into D.C. and teach residents how to exercise their newly restored rights responsibly. We'll hold as many classes as we need to in order to ensure that residents who want to own a gun know how to keep and bear it safely.
I also want to bring the Eddie Eagle gun safety program into each and every one of D.C.'s elementary schools, and I'm going to ask Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee to meet with me in order to put a plan of action together. Let's make sure that every elementary child in D.C. knows what to do in case they come across an unsecured firearm: Stop. Don't touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult.
Anti-gun politicians and gun-control groups haven't done anything to help the residents of D.C. become responsible gun owners, which is what we've come to expect. Once again, the members of the NRA stand ready to help educate and train the law-abiding Americans who want to responsibly exercise their Second Amendment rights.
|
-
|
Washington, D.C., politicians have announced their proposed gun laws in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Heller case, and it's clear that the local leaders have no respect for the Court's decision, and not much respect for the Court itself.
The local government in D.C. says that semi-automatic handguns will still be banned under the District's definition of a "machine gun," and also says that the storage requirement will remain on the books, with one exception: "while it is being used against reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person within a registered gun owner's home." In other words, you are required to keep your gun unloaded and locked away until a criminal has entered your home. Only then can you exercise your right of self-defense.
It gets worse: In order to legally register your handgun in the District, you'll be required to make five separate trips to the Metropolitan Police Department, and at least two separate trips to a federally licensed firearms dealer. Good luck trying to do it on your lunch hour. It's not only possible, it's almost a guarantee that anyone attempting to exercise their constitutional rights in the District would have to use a week of vacation time to jump through the hurdles the local politicians put in place. It's almost a certainty that those wanting to become legal gun owners will have to spend more time at the police station than someone arrested for violating the District's gun laws.
What does that say about the politicians in the District and their respect for the Constitution? What does it say about the politicians in the District and their respect for their constituents?
|
-
|
What would you think of a museum dedicated to the life of Abraham Lincoln that didn't feature a single firearm? The 16th president guided the Union through the bloody Civil War.
Not many people know the name Bob Rogers, or the name of his company, BRC Imagination Arts, but they are among the leaders in designing exhibits for museums and theme parks. And according to Rogers, the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Illinois, is gun-free on purpose.
In Andrew Ferguson's book, Land of Lincoln, Rogers is quoted as saying, "We made a conscious decision that we did not want to glorify war, and we did not want to glorify the mechanics of war." Set aside the argument that the men who fought and died to preserve the Union should be glorified. The fact is, Bob Rogers believes historical artifacts have no place in a museum if they don't fit the narrative he wants to create.
Can a gun-free retelling of the Revolutionary War be far behind? Will “The Shot Heard ‘Round The World” be changed to "The Shout Heard 'Round the World"? Will Lexington and Concord be portrayed not as battles for our independence … just spirited debates?
Our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an indelible part of our history. To ignore it isn't just politically correct, it's intellectually moronic.
|
-
Did you know that Senator Barack Obama wants to bring back the Clinton Gun Ban? Did you know that he supports gun bans in Chicago; Washington, D.C.; and elsewhere? Did you know Barack Obama is opposed to Right-to-Carry?
All of these things are true, and they're just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Obama's long anti-gun record.
NRA-ILA has put together a fact sheet, complete with citations that you can use to educate yourself and others on Senator Obama's rejection of the Second Amendment. It's vitally important that every gun owner knows the truth about Obama's position, and I want you to spread the word. Can you imagine the havoc that anti-gunners could impose on the United States with an anti-gun president and stalwart allies controlling both chambers of Congress?
Get informed and get active, and make sure every gun owner you know has heard the truth. The future of our freedoms depends on it.
|
-
The Boston Globe and one of its columnists, James Carroll, have sunk to a new low. In a screed against open carry, Carroll makes the claim that our sense of shame comes from our earliest ancestors and their use of weapons for hunting. Carroll claims the earliest exercise of religion was the result of this shame, which in his words, "spawned post-hunt rituals of sacrificial atonement, the genesis of religion." Gun owners, he argues, "forgo the primordial shame the weapon still generates." I've gotta tell you, I've seen a lot of columnists blame law-abiding gun owners for almost every one of society's ills, but this is the first time I've ever seen original sin laid squarely at our feet.
The truth is, of course, that there is no shame in hunting, and our ancestors knew that. Without the hunt, humans would not have survived. I'm not an anthropologist, but I'd be shocked if the post-hunt rituals of the earliest humans were based on atonement, rather than thanksgiving.
There's no shame in being a gun owner, either. James Carroll might not be a writer for an independent Boston newspaper if it weren't for a ragtag band of citizens who took on the British. I suggest that Carroll take a drive out to Bunker Hill, Lexington and Concord to think about history. Our Founding Fathers didn't relish having to use arms to gain their freedom, but they certainly weren't ashamed of the guns they owned and used.
It's another pathetic attempt to demonize gun owners, and I'm sure we'll see many more now that the Heller decision has been released. After all, we know the gun control crowd can be pretty shameless themselves.
|
-
Some blog has decided that the NRA is smearing Barack Obama and his record on the Second Amendment.
Before I get into Obama's record, I've gotta point out that the blog's author has no problem smearing the NRA. He accuses the NRA of "protecting gun companies' sales to gang bangers and criminals" and "protecting the right of criminals to have easy access to automatic weapons and high-kill rate ammunition." He even accuses the NRA of "protecting gun and ammunition sales to the Mexican drug cartels."
They're ridiculous charges, hardly worth mentioning except for the fact that this author believes the NRA is "smearing" Barack Obama by pointing out his anti-gun record. We use facts. We use Obama's voting record and his statements to the press and his supporters. When this blogger smears the NRA, he can only use innuendo and lies.
So here's the truth: The NRA isn't out to protect gang members, drug cartels or any other violent criminal. We believe that the answer to dealing with those lawbreakers is to vigorously enforce the existing laws and throw these people behind bars. We don't believe passing another gun control law designed to impact the law-abiding will help reduce criminal behavior.
The NRA stands by its statements about Barack Obama's Second Amendment record. Click the link above and see for yourself. Barack Obama is as anti-gun as they come, and that's no smear. It's just what they didn't tell you today.
|
-
Washington, D.C.'s mayor and city council may find themselves hauled before a judge again. The District of Columbia's released some guidelines on what the rules will be and what people will need to do before they're "granted" a license to own a gun.
The District's ban on semi-automatic firearms is still there. The District is now proposing a test of 20 multiple-choice questions that will have to be correctly answered before a license is given. And the District says those applying for a license "must not suffer from a physical defect which
would make it unsafe for you to possess and use a firearm safely and responsibly." These are just a few of the new hoops and hurdles residents of D.C. will have to jump through before exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Do we test individuals before they can speak freely? Do we deny a physically disabled person their ability to worship as they please? Do we charge people a fee in order for them to exercise their right to vote (which isn't even an enumerated right)? Of course not. I think the District should go back to the drawing board with their new proposals for gun ownership, because these regulations aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
This is one of the new battles that will be fought. For decades, our opponents have denied that we have a right to keep and bear arms. Now they'll belittle that right, trying to relegate it to the dustbin of history … a right we have, but no longer have any use for. They may not attempt to repeal the Second Amendment, as the Chicago Tribune suggested. They don't need to. Anti-gun politicians can throw up as many roadblocks as they deem necessary to the security of their state.
When they do, we'll challenge them. From the courthouse to the statehouse, we will continue to push for the preservation and restoration of our constitutional right, and we won't stop until we've won. To do any less is a dereliction of the duty we have as Americans to keep our liberty strong.
|
-
A bill in California’s State Senate would prohibit the private transfer of more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month between individuals, even friends or family. I suspect we’ll see more attacks on the Second Amendment using the back door of ammunition registration, purchase limits, and even serialization in the months ahead.
California’s bill, known as AB2062, would also require that anyone purchasing ammunition submit to a fingerprinting, and records of your ammunition purchase would be sent to a statewide database administered by California’s Department of Justice.
Bills like this don’t do anything to reduce violent crime, but they most certainly will add to the size of government and send yet another message to the law-abiding gun owners of California: you’re not welcome here. Isn’t it time the criminals got that message instead of us?
|
-
|
Oakland, California, looks to be the next city to back off of the "Safe Homes Initiative," a plan to send officers door to door to look for illegally possessed firearms.
When the project was announced in Boston late last year, it was met with a storm of protests. A few months later, Washington, D.C., announced it would be conducting a similar program, and that city was greeted with protests as well. Now it's Oakland's turn to hear from angry citizens, and like Boston and D.C., Oakland is backing off.
Now all three cities say they won't send officers door to door, but will instead send officers out to search a person's home if they request it. So far, police in Boston and D.C. are still waiting for someone to call and ask to have their home searched.
The politicians will no doubt still call this program a success, even though citizens have always been able to ask the police to search their homes for whatever reason they want. The real story is that residents in Boston, D.C. and now Oakland are standing up for their constitutional rights. If they're standing up for the Fourth Amendment, it gives me hope that more of them will start standing up for their Second Amendment rights as well.
|
|
|
|