► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Second Amednment’

Here Comes The Assault On The Second Amendment

by Flyovercountry ( 142 Comments › )
Filed under Second Amendment at January 13th, 2011 - 2:00 pm

Amendment II.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of

a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

shall not be infringed.

There it is, sweet and to the point. Yet, somehow, this simple one sentence amendment to the Constitution has been treated as though it were written in some Star Trek made up language from some non-existent planet. Every time we have a shooting in this country, especially now that we have never ending coverage, the usual bans are called for on firearms. Hollywood will have a movie out later next month, and the hidden message will be that this time, we need to ban gun ownership by private citizens. Just a quick post to think things through.

Myth # 1: Violent crime rates will be improved if we eliminate handguns.

The facts do not support this in the slightest. Every honest statistic kept by every honest researcher shows that rates for every single violent crime decreases dramatically in direct proportion to the ease with which private citizens are afforded gun ownership. A brief look across America is the perfect laboratory for this social experiment. Those urban areas where gun control is the strictest co-incidentally have the highest violent crime rates.

Myth # 2: Gun Free Zones act to protect people from the mentally unbalanced.

All Gun Free Zones have achieved is allowing large groups of unarmed people to become easy targets for those who wish to engage in mass shootings. Aver the last several weeks, we have seen an attempted shooting of public political figures. Do you remember the first? The first did not get the same media coverage. The reason of course is that no one died. The assailant was quickly shot by an armed citizen. We have also seen a private citizen shoot a man with an automatic weapon in a shopping mall within the last year. Do you even remember where? As it turns out, Loughner himself was subdued by a private citizen who was armed and arrived from a block away from the shooting. What would have been the outcome if Sheriff Barney Fife of Pima County Arizona had the foresight to send one of his deputies to the event on Saturday?

Myth # 3: The Second Amendment refers only to forming State Malitias.

This is easy to refute. Look at the second half of the sentence, the part just past the comma. It says, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” I personally do not believe that this could be any more plain than it is.

Myth # 4: Having a hand gun places you in increased danger should a criminial invade your residence.

Beyond the fact that this is just plain silly, there is absolutely zero evidence anywhere to support this claim. When tasked to support this bizarre theory, proponents of gun control resort to the anecdotal methodology.

Special note on anecdotal methodology for debating. Stop it already. This is only pulled out when the argument is lost and the only thing left is emotional appeal. I find in annoying during Presidential debates, maddening during public policy debates, and evilly offensive when used to dismantle the Constitution.

Myth # 5: The lack of gun control makes it too easy for criminals to get guns.

Criminals in foreign countries where gun ownership is prohibited have no problems getting guns. The thugs always seem to be exempt from the laws which regulate the average citizen. The United States is unique in that we have put all citizens on an equal footing with potential thugs. Gun control laws have been shown only those people disposed to comply with the laws. those people who would seek to be criminals, would not obey gun control laws while breaking others. The argument is fantasy which discounts entirely human behavior.

While You Weren’t Watching

by Iron Fist ( 103 Comments › )
Filed under Second Amendment, Terrorism at May 16th, 2010 - 12:00 pm

One of the anomalies of the Democrat supermajority/Obama Administration has been that with such a preponderance of Democratic Power we have yet to see the kind of drive for gun control that shaped the first two years of the Clinton Administration. Part of that is because a good many of the so-called “Blue Dog” Democrats know that they can kiss their cushy jobs goodbye at even the hint that they might possibly consider voting for a gun control law. Part of it has been that Obama has been a weaker leader than we might have expected him to be eighteen months ago, and that he has had other priorities. Well, the long feared gun control beast may be about to be let out of its cage.

In the wake of the Times Square bombing (an act by persons of indeterminate religious/political ideology and/or national origin) Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., has come to the interesting conclusion that if a person can be put on a “no-fly” list for suspected terrorist involvement, why can’t they be put on a “no gun” list forbidding them from being able to purchase firearms? Months before he set out to bomb Times Square, it seems that Faisal Shahzad went to a gun shop and purchased a rifle. There was nothing illegal about this purchase. Shahzad was a legal US citizen and, at the time under suspicion of nothing. He was even allowed to travel back and forth to Pakistan about as easily as you or I would go to the grocer’s.

Be that as it may, in his Senatorial wisdom Lautenberg wishes to change this. His proposed law, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, would allow the Attorney General (Eric Holder, of the Black Panther Voter Intimidation Racketeering protection team) to:

Provide the Attorney General with discretionary authority to deny the transfer or issuance of a firearm or firearm or explosives license or permit when a background check reveals that the purchaser is a known or suspected terrorist and the Attorney General reasonably believes that the person may use a firearm or explosives in connection with terrorism;
• Requires the Attorney General to issue guidelines describing the circumstances under which such discretionary authority will be used;
• Include due process safeguards that afford an affected person an opportunity to challenge a denial by the Attorney General; and
• Protect the sensitive information upon which terrorist watch lists are based.

A couple of things to point out. If the person in question is a known terrorist, he or she shouldn’t be denied their right to buy the gun: they should be taken into custody. Shahzad didn’t plant his bomb, then drop by the gun store on his way to the airport. His purchase was made long before his bomb, possibly even before he made the decision to become an Islamic Terrorist. What this actually does is give the AG the nearly unlimited power to deny anyone in the United States the right to purchase a firearm because, well, because. Maybe they are a dangerous Tea Party protestor, or vote Republican. Yes, there are supposed to be mechanisms built into the law to allow someone unjustly denied the right to purchase a firearm to challenge that, but if they work like such provisions do in other States/Municipalities with strict gun control you are more likely to get a Papal Indulgence than a gun once you have been denied it. One thing you can rest assured of: no one with the name of Shahzad or Hasan or Mohammed abu al Jihadi is going to be stopped from buying a gun by this law. That would be profiling, and profiling is wrong. On the other hand, we will simply have to trust AG Holder that he won’t use this against political opponents of the Administration. Just as we trusted him to prosecute the most egregious act of voter intimidation in the last 40 years. That worked out well, didn’t it?

Lautenberg’s Press Release

The Truth About Gun Sales to Terrorists