Posts Tagged gun prohibition

Gun Prohibitionists Will Never Be Satisfied

From Bearing Arms:

ANGER is mounting over laws which allowed a murderous Sydney dad to legally purchase two powerful handguns — one of which he used to kill his two children in a sickening home attack.

Almost 10,000 Australians have signed a petition which calls for a “full-scale” review of gun laws after the July 5 shooting in which John Edwards killed his children 15-year-old Jack and 13-year-old Jennifer in West Pennant Hills in the city’s west before returning to his home and killing himself.

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Resisting Tyranny With The Second Amendment

From Vox:

The Second Amendment does not create a right of revolution against tyranny. That inherent right is universal. As stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, “[I]t is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.” The Universal Declaration was influenced by the Declaration of Independence, thanks in part to the US delegation led by Ambassador Eleanor Roosevelt (who carried her own handgun for protection).

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Every Gun An “Assault Weapon”

From Bearing Arms:

Following the Santa Fe High School shooter and the Capital Gazetteshooter both using shotguns, though, it seems that anti-gunners are trying to use that to open the door on broader restrictions.

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Failed Arguments Of Gun Grabbers

From Ammoland:

I have one small thing to ask of the gun-prohibitionists. Please stop lying to us.  For extra credit, I’d like the rights-restrictors to stop lying to themselves as well. Even that may be too much to ask. If the gun control advocates must lie, then make up some new propaganda. The old lies are wearing thin, and here are some obvious ones. See if you agree.

The courts have ruled time and again that the police have no duty to protect us. The police are not liable for our protection even if you called the police and asked for help before you were attacked. The police collect evidence of a crime. If a criminal is active long enough, then eventually the police might catch him. Whether a jury will convict the criminal, whether a judge will sentence him and he will actually serve his sentence, is another question entirely. The police might, or might not, stop a crime committed right in front of them.

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments