Posts Tagged Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Time To End The NRA?

From The Truth About Guns:

The National Rifle Association — America’s oldest civil rights organization — is in an existential crisis today brought on by mismanagement, cronyism, and self-dealing by its leadership. Every week brings forth a new allegation, a new bit of evidence that the that the NRA’s leaders are more interested in lining their own pockets and enjoying the perquisites of power than promoting marksmanship, gun safety, and defending the right to keep and bear arms.

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

South Dakota Now Constitutional Carry State

From AP:

South Dakota is the 14th state to enact such a law for both residents and visitors. Pennington County Capt. Marty Graves tells KOTA-TV he thinks it’s a good thing for gun owners. Graves says it will lighten the work load for his office because it will no longer issue the permits and collect the fees.

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Supreme Court: Americans have right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live

Otis McDonald said he joined a federal lawsuit to challenge Chicago's 28-year-old handgun ban because he wants a handgun at home to protect himself from gangs.

“WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court held Monday that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live, expanding the conservative court’s embrace of gun rights since John Roberts became Chief Justice.

By a 5-4 vote, the justices cast doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but signaled that some limitations on the Constitution’s “right to keep and bear arms” could survive legal challenges.”

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2010/06/28/4575970-justices-extend-gun-owner-rights-nationwide

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Is Chicago trying to stifle right-to-carry ‘town hall meetings’?

Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley

Kurt Hofmann, St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner:
“Back in April, I wrote about Illinois Carry’s announcement of a series of “town hall meetings” throughout the state, to educate the public about defensive handgun carry. Since then, those meetings have started the process of building public support for armed self-defense.

Perhaps they’re making a difference–attitudes certainly seem to be changing. That’s why gun rights advocates were really looking forward to having such a meeting right in Chicago itself, and why it’s so unfortunate that a planned south-side Chicago meeting for June 30th has suddenly been thrown into limbo. From the Chicago Reader:

Gerald Vernon says he did everything he should have to obtain a permit to hold a meeting at the Tuley Park field house on the south side…and walked away thinking he’d reserved a meeting room for the evening of June 30. The group that would be convening was Illinois Carry, an organization advocating for the right to bear concealed firearms.

But on Wednesday, a week before the scheduled date of the event, he got a call telling him his permit had been revoked.

The event has apparently been canceled–with no explanation.”

http://www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-Louis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m6d25-Is-Chicago-trying-to-stifle-righttocarry-town-hall-meetings

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Why Carrying a Gun is a Civilized Act

Why The Gun Is Civilization

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

,

1 Comment

Think there’s no way the guys in blue helmets can take your guns?

Wayne LaPierre’s The Global War on Your Guns takes you inside the U.N. plan to destroy the Bill of Rights by attacking the one right that makes any right possible, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

LaPierre’s well-researched chapters outline the threat itself, how the U.N. works, and the phalanx of international forces determined to eliminate the basic human right of self-preservation through elimination of all private firearm ownership.

In The Global War on Your Guns you will learn:

  • How a 1997 land mine treaty molded the U.N.’s new strategy
  • How the U.N. funnels your tax dollars to anti-gun member nations
  • Why the U.S. domestic gun-ban crowd is investing big in the U.N.
  • What U.N. disarmament has done to once-free peoples of the world
  • How extreme U.N. gun laws can be enforced on Americans-even without a new treaty

LaPierre exposes the labyrinth of international connections and cash flow that have moved this chilling threat from blueprint to binding treaty. At center stage, LaPierre spotlights global billionaires like George Soros and a colossal coalition of domestic and worldwide gun-ban and animal-rights groups.

http://superstore.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1100&RELATED_ITEM_ID=806

, , , ,

No Comments