Saturday, March 31, 2007
THE ART OF THE DRAW
I've always found this clip entertaining. Due to the frequency that gun owners post it on the internet, I suspect I'm not alone.
I believe the reason it's so popular is because of the scenario it depicts: a close-quarters encounter with an armed opponent. Hollywood has filmed countless gun battles, but typically the scenes range from improbable to completely unbelievable.
Nearly every street encounter that people will experience will be with an armed thug standing within just a few feet, if not right in your face. There won't be any Matrix-type spins and flips along the wall. The bad guys won't be emptying several magazines from their automatic weapons (all bullets missing the hero), while the hero dives to the ground, rolls into a crouching stance and methodically takes each bad guy down with a headshot.
The encounter will be quick, it may be unexpected. The odds are good that your opponent has had these encounters in the past, with other victims. It's quite possible that the opponent has used his weapon before. It's also possible that he's been shot in the past, and doesn't experience petrified fear at the sight of your weapon.
When you practice with your handgun, keep this video in the back of your mind. How often do you practice dry-firing your weapon? How often do you practice your draw? How quickly can you fire from rest and put a bullet in the COM?
In a street encounter, we won't have time to check our shooting stance, correct the grip, double-check our sight alignment and slowly squeeze the trigger. All of those actions must practiced until they are completely automatic.
The thought process cannot contain several sequential steps.
It must be one word: REACT.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
GIULIANI ON REGISTRATION
Those of you that will be voting in the Republican primary should remember this clip as you step into the booth. Whether the next President has a (D) or (R) next to their name matters little. What matters is their dedication to preserving your rights.
On his campaign website, Giuliani writes this as his position on the 2nd Amendment:
Rudy Giuliani is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. When he was Mayor of a city suffering an average of almost 2000 murders a year, he protected people by getting illegal handguns out of the hands of criminals.
Here's the problem: Giuliani's method was not just to take handguns away from criminals. He took it several steps further and sued most of the firearms industry.
He seems to wish to sit on both sides of the fence. On one hand, he says he believes in the 2nd Amendment. On the other hand, his support for that right appears to be limited to certain uses of firearms; ie, he supports the use of guns when hunting, or by law enforcement - but appears to firmly believe that Americans should be restricted in owning a gun for self defense.
Fortunately, the lawsuit was effectively ended after President Bush signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005.
Beyond the lawsuit, New York requires a license to own a handgun. Not just to carry one concealed - to own one. If you wish to own a handgun, and keep it IN YOUR HOME - prepare to apply for a license. The license may take up to 6 months to be processed. Furthermore, the decision of whether or not you will be granted a license is solely up to the licensing officer. If you are denied a license, the denial can only be overturned in court by proving that the denial was "arbitrary and capricious."
The 2nd Amendment is clear: your right shall not be infringed. I see no difference in New York charging $439 for a handgun license, and the poll tax which was eliminated with the 24th Amendment.
Don't let the Republican label fool you - Giuliani is no friend to gun owners.
Monday, March 19, 2007
BRILLIANT
Virginia Gun Dealers Hold Contest to Protest New York Mayor Bloomberg's Gun Policy
You can read the rest here.
Michael, here's a bit of advice for you - trying spending more time worrying about your own police slaughtering unarmed citizens and less time worrying about gun stores in other states.
"Ask about the Bloomberg Gun GiveAway" reads a sign taped to the gun shop's register, beckoning customers to enter the drawing named for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose federal lawsuits against gun dealers in five states have drawn the wrath of Virginia's gun enthusiasts.
Bloomberg says the dealers holding the contest are sick. The dealers call Bloomberg names that aren't fit to print.
You can read the rest here.
Michael, here's a bit of advice for you - trying spending more time worrying about your own police slaughtering unarmed citizens and less time worrying about gun stores in other states.
9MM FAILURES: BEHIND THE STORY
New shooters often ask which handgun and/or caliber is "best" for self-defense. It's inevitable that they'll get as many answers as there are handguns and calibers.
Some people mention their own gun as the best... whether it's a Glock, a 1911, an XD, or a revolver.
In answering the caliber question, one popular answer is "anything that begins with .4". Another is "a 9mm may expand, but a .45 will never shrink".
The answer we should always begin with is "The best firearm for you is one that is reliable, feels comfortable, and that you can afford." The best caliber is "the one you can can shoot with consistent control, and afford to practice with." Once we've established these two points as key, then we can begin to move into other areas of manufacturer, type of action, and the size of the bullet.
Some shooters are partial to revolvers, and for good reason: generally speaking, they are the most reliable and the easiest to operate. A good revolver can also be more accurate than some semi-autos, given that the barrel is connected directly to the frame; there's no "play" between the two pieces to affect accuracy.
Other shooters prefer the semi-auto, and within that camp there are various sub-camps that will declare the 1911 to be the only pistol worth shooting, or that the 1911 is a old-timer's gun which (while a notable firearm) has been far eclipsed by polymer guns in terms of reliability, ease-of-maintenance, and cost.
No one can really decide for someone else which gun is best for that shooter... all we can offer is advice and feedback on what our own experience has been. The advice I always give someone is to shoot various guns, and determine which one feels the best in their own hand.
Caliber is yet another choice to be made, especially if your chosen gun is available in multiple calibers. While the shooting community generally agrees that anything less than a .38 isn't a good defense round, we tend to endlessly debate the best higher-end choice. Some won't carry less than a .45, while others feel the 9mm is a proven round. Some shooters have decided to follow the lead of law enforcement and carry the relatively new .40.
While reading posts in the countless gun forums out there, I've often read the story of the Miami Bank Robbery incident. It was this incident which prompted LE to find a replacement for the 9mm round, due to the poor performance of the round in this incident. Shooters who malign the 9mm in favor of larger rounds often mention this case as "proof" that the 9mm lacks power and penetration.
Until recently, I'd found the story mildly interesting... although it didn't affect my choice in carrying a 9mm. But yesterday I came upon a link which shed some new light on the subject. Especially interesting was this diagram, which shows how the 9mm failed to stop the assailant.
Here's the part I find especially notable: the "failed shot" entered the man's arm, went through it, entered the right side of the torso, went through the ribs, and then stopped just short of the heart.
Now in terms of failing to hit the heart (and kill the man) - yes, the 9mm round did fail. But I want to point out two things. First, the round itself was 115 gr. That's rather small compared to what is currently available in 9mm... both 125 gr and 147 gr are popular choices. Secondly, while the round did fail to penetrate the heart - it penetrated his arm, back out again, and then went through the ribs! While I'm not a pathologist nor a ballistics expert, my opinion is that if the round had begun it's fateful journey from the front of the chest - we might not be having this conversation.
Details of the entire incident are available here, so there's no need in restating the whole matter. But to sum up: shot placement by the LEO's was fairly non-existent due to many factors. The shot that "failed" certainly had a lot of penetration - just not enough in this circumstance. And finally, the round itself was a very light 115 grains. Might a 147 gr might have reached the heart...? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it's worth considering.
Gun owners should base their decisions on many factors, and the story above is indeed a factor to consider. But it's not the end of the story. Countless people have been stopped with every caliber from .38 special to .44 magnum... and while this one incident did change the climate in law enforcement, it is not a universal verdict on the lethality of the 9mm cartridge.
Monday, March 5, 2007
THE TRUTH ABOUT REGISTRATION
Gun control advocates have a lot of areas from which to begin legislation. Their attack method varies, depending on the demographic of people they're attempting to disarm.
In the inner-cities, they try to ban inexpensive firearms. The "Saturday Night Special" is a favorite target, and often mentioned by name in their list of banned guns. Some cities have placed limits on magazine capacity or ban combat rifles like the AR15. Lately, a few legislators have come up with a rather unique solution to the problem of banning guns without having to deal with 2nd Amendment issues: requiring a license to purchase ammunition.
Some states pass laws requiring a citizen to register their firearms, and other states have limits on how many firearms you are allowed to purchase in a given time frame - you may only purchase 1 firearm/month.
If one path of attack isn't successful, the anti's simply change to a different plan. If asking the state to maintain a NICS database isn't successful, a city will simply deny a business license to entrepreneurs who wish to open a gun store.
As with any proposed law, supporters of gun rights tend to have a list of standard responses which they'll use to debate the issue.
For example, we continue to fight against registration of firearms.
Many times I've read something like this:
"Registration will not work, because criminals will not register their guns. Only law-abiding citizens will comply. Therefore, crime will not be reduced."
This is certainly true. However, it's missing the point. To adequately fight this battle, you have to understand the goal of the anti-gunner.
Once again, I need you to think.
The goal of the hardcore anti is not to reduce crime. Reducing crime is merely a hopeful afterthought. The goal of the anti is to get rid of guns. Most don't believe they'll ever be rid of all the guns... and they're not bothered by that. So long as they collect and destroy as many guns as possible, they'll believe it's a worthy cause.
Think about this for a moment, and then think about why the standard response above doesn't remove their desire to take away your gun.
I'm going to make up some numbers for the sake of illustration. Let us assume there are 10 million guns in America. Let us also assume that 1 out of 10 guns is owned by a criminal. I suspect I'm being very liberal, and the number of guns owned by criminals is a far lower percentage. But for the moment, let's go with 1 out of every 10 guns.
Now, let's say that all the law-abiding citizens registered their guns. And after the registration, somehow the anti's were able to confiscate and destroy all of the registered guns.
Are the dots beginning to connect?
Given our fictional numbers above, the anti's have destroyed 9 million guns.
The criminals still own 1 million guns, but that is not important to the anti. Their goal was not to disarm the criminal... their goal was to confiscate and destroy as many guns as possible, and using that logic - registration was a HUGE success!
I'm not testing the limits of reality. Consider this quote from Tom Gresham's site:
They want to be rid of all the guns, end of story.
Let's ponder a secondary point, which expands on my earlier article on the 2nd Amendment:
What a criminal will or will not do with his illegal gun has no bearing on my right to own one. To state it a different way: if all the criminals alive today were to give up their guns, would YOU give your gun up as well?
I certainly wouldn't.
When anti's are told this:
"Registration will not work, because criminals will not register their guns. Only law-abiding citizens will comply. Therefore, crime will not be reduced."
...they are also being inadvertently told that your reason for owning a gun is because criminals own guns. And if the lawmakers could remove the guns from criminal hands, you'd be happy to consider it.
There will always be criminals. Many haven't even been born yet. It's a fact that anti's are loathe to admit, but a fact nonetheless. Some of them illegally wield guns; others wield knives and some carry steel pipes. Others need no weapon at all, and rely on their physical size, strength, and the element of surprise.
A gun can be a resource with which to protect your life.
My life, and the worth of my life, is not defined by whether or not a criminal decides to carry a gun. My right to own a gun and protect myself is not dependent on a criminal's preferred method of assault.
Remember the anti's true goal.
It's not about reducing crime. It's about reducing the number of guns.
In the inner-cities, they try to ban inexpensive firearms. The "Saturday Night Special" is a favorite target, and often mentioned by name in their list of banned guns. Some cities have placed limits on magazine capacity or ban combat rifles like the AR15. Lately, a few legislators have come up with a rather unique solution to the problem of banning guns without having to deal with 2nd Amendment issues: requiring a license to purchase ammunition.
Some states pass laws requiring a citizen to register their firearms, and other states have limits on how many firearms you are allowed to purchase in a given time frame - you may only purchase 1 firearm/month.
If one path of attack isn't successful, the anti's simply change to a different plan. If asking the state to maintain a NICS database isn't successful, a city will simply deny a business license to entrepreneurs who wish to open a gun store.
As with any proposed law, supporters of gun rights tend to have a list of standard responses which they'll use to debate the issue.
For example, we continue to fight against registration of firearms.
Many times I've read something like this:
"Registration will not work, because criminals will not register their guns. Only law-abiding citizens will comply. Therefore, crime will not be reduced."
This is certainly true. However, it's missing the point. To adequately fight this battle, you have to understand the goal of the anti-gunner.
Once again, I need you to think.
The goal of the hardcore anti is not to reduce crime. Reducing crime is merely a hopeful afterthought. The goal of the anti is to get rid of guns. Most don't believe they'll ever be rid of all the guns... and they're not bothered by that. So long as they collect and destroy as many guns as possible, they'll believe it's a worthy cause.
Think about this for a moment, and then think about why the standard response above doesn't remove their desire to take away your gun.
I'm going to make up some numbers for the sake of illustration. Let us assume there are 10 million guns in America. Let us also assume that 1 out of 10 guns is owned by a criminal. I suspect I'm being very liberal, and the number of guns owned by criminals is a far lower percentage. But for the moment, let's go with 1 out of every 10 guns.
Now, let's say that all the law-abiding citizens registered their guns. And after the registration, somehow the anti's were able to confiscate and destroy all of the registered guns.
Are the dots beginning to connect?
Given our fictional numbers above, the anti's have destroyed 9 million guns.
The criminals still own 1 million guns, but that is not important to the anti. Their goal was not to disarm the criminal... their goal was to confiscate and destroy as many guns as possible, and using that logic - registration was a HUGE success!
I'm not testing the limits of reality. Consider this quote from Tom Gresham's site:
When Tom Diaz, of the Violence Policy Center, was on Gun Talk, I forced him to admit that he would like to ban all guns. What about the police, I asked. Once we get all the other guns, he said, the police won't need their guns, either.
They want to be rid of all the guns, end of story.
Let's ponder a secondary point, which expands on my earlier article on the 2nd Amendment:
What a criminal will or will not do with his illegal gun has no bearing on my right to own one. To state it a different way: if all the criminals alive today were to give up their guns, would YOU give your gun up as well?
I certainly wouldn't.
When anti's are told this:
"Registration will not work, because criminals will not register their guns. Only law-abiding citizens will comply. Therefore, crime will not be reduced."
...they are also being inadvertently told that your reason for owning a gun is because criminals own guns. And if the lawmakers could remove the guns from criminal hands, you'd be happy to consider it.
There will always be criminals. Many haven't even been born yet. It's a fact that anti's are loathe to admit, but a fact nonetheless. Some of them illegally wield guns; others wield knives and some carry steel pipes. Others need no weapon at all, and rely on their physical size, strength, and the element of surprise.
A gun can be a resource with which to protect your life.
My life, and the worth of my life, is not defined by whether or not a criminal decides to carry a gun. My right to own a gun and protect myself is not dependent on a criminal's preferred method of assault.
Remember the anti's true goal.
It's not about reducing crime. It's about reducing the number of guns.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
YOU CALL THIS A "CHOICE"?
FatWhiteGuy is about a big of fan as John McCain as I am. But to be fair, I have about as much interest in having McCain winning the election as the rest of them. The biggest issue I have with the 3 Republican candidates is that I can't determine why they expect conservatives to be excited about the chance to vote for them.
The Democrat candidates are easy to understand... the Republicans, not so much. Let's go down the list:
- Hillary Clinton
If you've hated nearly everything that happened in America from 1980-88, or since 1992, Hillary is your candidate. If your most secret desire is to see Ted Nugent killed with his own black rifle and his remains ground up and used as fertilizer for organic produce - she's your choice.
- Barack Obama
If you're a liberal that wants to win the White House, but think Hillary is far too polarizing - Obama fits the bill. He's fairly unassuming, and to many appears to be the one who can take an even-handed liberal approach to leadership. He's also a new player in the game, so there isn't as much baggage in his closet.
- John Edwards
Erm... given that Edwards lost out the last time he was in a primary, and lost the last time he was on the VP Ticket... I'm not sure why you'd vote for him. The only reason I can think of is that he's a white guy, and you can't bring yourself to vote for a woman or a black guy. Or maybe you just really like millionaire personal injury lawyers.
...onto the RINO's...
- John McCain
Do I really need to retype it all? Nah. Check the post below.
- Rudolph William Louis Giuliani III
Wow. Long name. Almost sounds like royalty. Anyhoo... let's take a look at Rudy's positions: Gay Marriage - Supports It. Abortion - Supports It. Gun Control - Supports It. Now, let me be clear on one particular point: I support gay rights. But it's not stretching reality to point out that the average Bush Conservative doesn't. Nor do they support abortion or gun control. Which begs the questions: a) why is Giuliani a Republican b) how exactly does he plan to convince Republicans that he's not really a Democrat?
- Mitt Romney
I can't tell if Romney is the Republican version of Obama (no huge marks against him yet) or Edwards (white guy.) Possibly it's just a combination of both. Overall, it looks as if Romney is your candidate if you can't stand McCain and think Rudy is one of those New York RINOs.
So which one of the above will I be voting for in the primaries?
None of them. I'm a registered Libertarian.
The Democrat candidates are easy to understand... the Republicans, not so much. Let's go down the list:
- Hillary Clinton
If you've hated nearly everything that happened in America from 1980-88, or since 1992, Hillary is your candidate. If your most secret desire is to see Ted Nugent killed with his own black rifle and his remains ground up and used as fertilizer for organic produce - she's your choice.
- Barack Obama
If you're a liberal that wants to win the White House, but think Hillary is far too polarizing - Obama fits the bill. He's fairly unassuming, and to many appears to be the one who can take an even-handed liberal approach to leadership. He's also a new player in the game, so there isn't as much baggage in his closet.
- John Edwards
Erm... given that Edwards lost out the last time he was in a primary, and lost the last time he was on the VP Ticket... I'm not sure why you'd vote for him. The only reason I can think of is that he's a white guy, and you can't bring yourself to vote for a woman or a black guy. Or maybe you just really like millionaire personal injury lawyers.
...onto the RINO's...
- John McCain
Do I really need to retype it all? Nah. Check the post below.
- Rudolph William Louis Giuliani III
Wow. Long name. Almost sounds like royalty. Anyhoo... let's take a look at Rudy's positions: Gay Marriage - Supports It. Abortion - Supports It. Gun Control - Supports It. Now, let me be clear on one particular point: I support gay rights. But it's not stretching reality to point out that the average Bush Conservative doesn't. Nor do they support abortion or gun control. Which begs the questions: a) why is Giuliani a Republican b) how exactly does he plan to convince Republicans that he's not really a Democrat?
- Mitt Romney
I can't tell if Romney is the Republican version of Obama (no huge marks against him yet) or Edwards (white guy.) Possibly it's just a combination of both. Overall, it looks as if Romney is your candidate if you can't stand McCain and think Rudy is one of those New York RINOs.
So which one of the above will I be voting for in the primaries?
None of them. I'm a registered Libertarian.
GLOCK MADNESS
Something that continues to mystify me is the strange over-obsession with Glock handguns. I'm not talking about the people that own a full-sized for range use and a compact for daily carry; I'm talking about people that seem to collect them like Pokemon.
I understand the desire to collect unique, old, historical, or rare firearms. Or sometimes you'll find something that you can't explain your desire for, but nonetheless you'll pull out the wallet and take home a new prize. Some wants and needs have no justification. Nor is it required.
I don't need an H&K VP70-Z, but I do want one. I also don't need a Ruger revolver, but I'm still kicking myself for not buying the one that I saw for sale last week in a forum. Nor do I have a practical need for a Walther P99-AS 9mm, but the gun feels so nice in my hand that I hope to buy one some day.
But some Glock collectors make me wonder. People that own duplicates of the same model, and multiple models. Keep in mind that we're talking about a handgun with a design that is virtually identical across the spectrum. There's no functional nor size nor aesthetic difference in a G19 and a G23; the only difference is caliber. Yet it never fails to amuse me when someone proudly states they own a G17, two G22's, three G19's, two G23's, and they're on the hunt for another G23 "to join the brothers in the safe".
I wonder even more about Glock fans that constantly bemoan the fact that Glock doesn't innovate often enough. They generally post messages on forums begging for Gaston to offer some combination of caliber and features that isn't available.
Here's the part I have trouble with:
Glock makes 23 different models (not even counting the 380, which generally isn't available for import) in various slide lengths, calibers, width, and capacity.
I seriously believe that if Glock offered every caliber in every slide length (from compact to longslide) with every capacity (single-stack to hi-capacity) with both types of rails... some people would still find some variation that Glock hadn't thought of and still not be happy.
Here's my point: whatever your reasons for collecting Glocks - they're your own reasons, and likely none of my business. But sometimes it doesn't look like "collecting"; it looks more like "compulsive buying".
If you can't find the perfect combo that you're after, then perhaps it's time to look at another brand of firearm. Or even better, take 1 of the 18 Glocks you own out of the safe, go to the range, and shoot 200 rounds through it.
And for the record: in case any readers think I just don't like Glocks... my defensive handgun of choice is a G19.
I understand the desire to collect unique, old, historical, or rare firearms. Or sometimes you'll find something that you can't explain your desire for, but nonetheless you'll pull out the wallet and take home a new prize. Some wants and needs have no justification. Nor is it required.
I don't need an H&K VP70-Z, but I do want one. I also don't need a Ruger revolver, but I'm still kicking myself for not buying the one that I saw for sale last week in a forum. Nor do I have a practical need for a Walther P99-AS 9mm, but the gun feels so nice in my hand that I hope to buy one some day.
But some Glock collectors make me wonder. People that own duplicates of the same model, and multiple models. Keep in mind that we're talking about a handgun with a design that is virtually identical across the spectrum. There's no functional nor size nor aesthetic difference in a G19 and a G23; the only difference is caliber. Yet it never fails to amuse me when someone proudly states they own a G17, two G22's, three G19's, two G23's, and they're on the hunt for another G23 "to join the brothers in the safe".
I wonder even more about Glock fans that constantly bemoan the fact that Glock doesn't innovate often enough. They generally post messages on forums begging for Gaston to offer some combination of caliber and features that isn't available.
Here's the part I have trouble with:
Glock makes 23 different models (not even counting the 380, which generally isn't available for import) in various slide lengths, calibers, width, and capacity.
I seriously believe that if Glock offered every caliber in every slide length (from compact to longslide) with every capacity (single-stack to hi-capacity) with both types of rails... some people would still find some variation that Glock hadn't thought of and still not be happy.
Here's my point: whatever your reasons for collecting Glocks - they're your own reasons, and likely none of my business. But sometimes it doesn't look like "collecting"; it looks more like "compulsive buying".
If you can't find the perfect combo that you're after, then perhaps it's time to look at another brand of firearm. Or even better, take 1 of the 18 Glocks you own out of the safe, go to the range, and shoot 200 rounds through it.
And for the record: in case any readers think I just don't like Glocks... my defensive handgun of choice is a G19.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
THE LIE OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT
I need you to think.
Gun owners have been defending their rights for quite awhile. Long before Carolyn McCarty's current bill. Long before Bill Clinton's 1994 ban. Some believe that United States vs Miller (1939) was the birth of modern gun control.
All of that legislation has certainly impacted gun owners, though of course there have been other laws passed. There are literally thousands of laws in America at the federal, state, and local level which affect your right to own and carry a firearm.
But for the moment, let's put the legislation aside. Let's forget about House Bill 10-22 and focus on something we all hold dear - the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.
Like many of you, I read a lot of blogs and participate in various web forums. And over the years, I have heard many people argue about their right to own a firearm. Unfortunately, many of the arguments I've heard aren't correct.
Let's examine a couple of them.
1. "The 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own a gun."
...and a slightly reworded version...
2. "The 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to own a gun."
Both arguments are completely wrong. This isn't a matter of opinion, and it's not a matter of semantics. Every time someone tells an anti-gun activist or politician that the Constitution gives them a right to own a firearm, they're wrong. That is not what the Constitution says, and using those two statements in debate actually weakens your argument.
I need you to think.
Let's look at what the 2nd Amendment actually says. Many people can quote it, but far too many people don't understand it.
"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."
I can hear someone in the back of the room muttering "What's your point, thorn? It's the same damned thing."
Here's the point. And it's very important one: the 2nd Amendment does not GIVE you the right to own a firearm. It forbids the government from taking that right away from you.
Semantics? Splitting Hairs?
No.
Words mean something. And here's what the words of the 2nd Amendment mean:
You intrinsically have the right to own a firearm. For whatever reason you choose. Perhaps you enjoy owning a gun because of it's historical nature. Perhaps you enjoy the mechanical aspects and work on them as a hobby. Or perhaps you own a gun to defend your life.
It really doesn't matter why you own a gun. The Constitution does not require you to justify it. It doesn't give you a right to own it. What it does do is specifically forbid the government from taking that right away.
I need you to think.
Your mere existence gives you the right to own a firearm, just as your existence gives you the right to breathe. The right to think, and the right to speak.
The Constitution doesn't give you any rights. Rather, it specifically lists the rights that you have which the government is not allowed to take away from you.
Here's the point - stop telling people that the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to own a gun. Stating that is also stating that the government has the "right" to take it away.
Instead, tell the anti-gun activists, the politicians, the friend, and the co-worker that your right to own a firearm is guaranteed by the fact that you exist.
Gun owners have been defending their rights for quite awhile. Long before Carolyn McCarty's current bill. Long before Bill Clinton's 1994 ban. Some believe that United States vs Miller (1939) was the birth of modern gun control.
All of that legislation has certainly impacted gun owners, though of course there have been other laws passed. There are literally thousands of laws in America at the federal, state, and local level which affect your right to own and carry a firearm.
But for the moment, let's put the legislation aside. Let's forget about House Bill 10-22 and focus on something we all hold dear - the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.
Like many of you, I read a lot of blogs and participate in various web forums. And over the years, I have heard many people argue about their right to own a firearm. Unfortunately, many of the arguments I've heard aren't correct.
Let's examine a couple of them.
1. "The 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own a gun."
...and a slightly reworded version...
2. "The 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to own a gun."
Both arguments are completely wrong. This isn't a matter of opinion, and it's not a matter of semantics. Every time someone tells an anti-gun activist or politician that the Constitution gives them a right to own a firearm, they're wrong. That is not what the Constitution says, and using those two statements in debate actually weakens your argument.
I need you to think.
Let's look at what the 2nd Amendment actually says. Many people can quote it, but far too many people don't understand it.
"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."
I can hear someone in the back of the room muttering "What's your point, thorn? It's the same damned thing."
Here's the point. And it's very important one: the 2nd Amendment does not GIVE you the right to own a firearm. It forbids the government from taking that right away from you.
Semantics? Splitting Hairs?
No.
Words mean something. And here's what the words of the 2nd Amendment mean:
You intrinsically have the right to own a firearm. For whatever reason you choose. Perhaps you enjoy owning a gun because of it's historical nature. Perhaps you enjoy the mechanical aspects and work on them as a hobby. Or perhaps you own a gun to defend your life.
It really doesn't matter why you own a gun. The Constitution does not require you to justify it. It doesn't give you a right to own it. What it does do is specifically forbid the government from taking that right away.
I need you to think.
Your mere existence gives you the right to own a firearm, just as your existence gives you the right to breathe. The right to think, and the right to speak.
The Constitution doesn't give you any rights. Rather, it specifically lists the rights that you have which the government is not allowed to take away from you.
Here's the point - stop telling people that the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to own a gun. Stating that is also stating that the government has the "right" to take it away.
Instead, tell the anti-gun activists, the politicians, the friend, and the co-worker that your right to own a firearm is guaranteed by the fact that you exist.
Friday, March 2, 2007
AND THE ANSWER IS...
The Bethy took a shot in yesterday's game of "Name the Candidate" with an answer of Barack Obama.
Her reasons were pretty good:
Unfortunately, I suppose it was a trick question... given that the answer wasn't one of the Democrats I listed at the end of the post.
The correct answer is:
John McCain. Seen here impersonating a pirate.
Yes, one of the front-runners for President in the Republican party has views so far to the left that one can easily mistake him for a Democratic candidate.
No doubt his supporters will do everything possible to obscure his past voting record.
Her reasons were pretty good:
I'm going with Obama, because everyone seems to be in love with him right now, and you think that his leftist views are being overshadowed by his charming personality. You don't want people to be deceived.
Unfortunately, I suppose it was a trick question... given that the answer wasn't one of the Democrats I listed at the end of the post.
The correct answer is:
John McCain. Seen here impersonating a pirate.
Yes, one of the front-runners for President in the Republican party has views so far to the left that one can easily mistake him for a Democratic candidate.
No doubt his supporters will do everything possible to obscure his past voting record.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...
This is a bit old, but it will never get old.
David Wu (D) Oregon
January 10, 2007
David Wu (D) Oregon
January 10, 2007
ON MATTERS OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
Ah, the joys of the presidential elections. That wonderful point in democracy where common people from common places travel to other common places to convince other common people that one is the best choice to be the next president of the United States.
Let's play a game, shall we?
I like to call this "name the candidate".
This candidate is notable for the following positions:
1. This candidate was against the Bush tax cuts in 2001.
2. This candidate believes in limiting free speech.
3. This candidate favors granting citizenship to the approximately 12-20 million illegal aliens in America.
4. This candidate is against drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which would significantly lower American dependency on foreign oil sources.
5. This candidate supports legislation to require background checks at gun shows, for sales between private individuals.
6. This candidate supports forcing television and radio stations to give free airtime to political candidates as a public interest.
So... who's the mystery candidate?
Clinton? Obama? Edwards?
Let's play a game, shall we?
I like to call this "name the candidate".
This candidate is notable for the following positions:
1. This candidate was against the Bush tax cuts in 2001.
2. This candidate believes in limiting free speech.
3. This candidate favors granting citizenship to the approximately 12-20 million illegal aliens in America.
4. This candidate is against drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which would significantly lower American dependency on foreign oil sources.
5. This candidate supports legislation to require background checks at gun shows, for sales between private individuals.
6. This candidate supports forcing television and radio stations to give free airtime to political candidates as a public interest.
So... who's the mystery candidate?
Clinton? Obama? Edwards?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)