After reading the January 6 article, "Anti Gun Groups Applaud Keeping College Campuses “Gun Free Zones” ...And Killing Zones", about the back-slapping anti-second amendment lobby's celebration of rights infringement on college campuses, it seemed a good time to consider what drives them. Our friends over at Second Amendment Freedom-Firearms Rights draw attention to the killing fields created by "gun-free zones" described earlier by Dr. John Lott, Genie Jennings, and others.
The Bradys and their ilk apparently are so deluded they no longer care about tyranny and don't recognize their own contribution. (And they are supported and encouraged by Soros, Bloomberg, and other wealthy backers with their own agendas).
I live in an area which is a sanctuary for aliens, legal and otherwise. They have brought the violence they sought to escape with them (families of MS-13 members, for example, are always accompanied by their gangbanger relatives). A growing number of immigrants have come from countries where women have no rights and wives are collected like farm animals for breeding. They have brought their misogynist culture with them to the U.S.
The RKBA is more important than ever, as our founders wisely predicted. I can't explain why anti-second amendment activists apparently believe they are carrying a banner of safety more important than our rights, other than perhaps they or those they care about have been involved in traumas where a firearm was present and someone's post-traumatic engram is driving it. They seem to honestly think that twisting the meaning of the second amendment to suit their agenda is to be desired, short-sighted and wrong though it obviously is.
These minions will stop at nothing to satisfy their wealthy supporters under the guise of "public health" and their unholy alliance with anti-U.S. organizations including the OSI, IANSA and the UN, all of which seek to disarm ordinary citizens and undercut the U.S. Constitution.
Whatever happened to patriotic sentiments like the state of New Hampshire's motto, "live free or die", and Patrick Henry's impassioned statement, "give me liberty or give me death"? Have we turned into a country of timid politically-correct, deluded Stepford wives who welcome global oppression and the demise of our constitution? I don't think so.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Sunday, February 15, 2009
HR 45 - Blair Holt - Unconstitutional Gun Registration
HR 45 - ‘‘Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009" is designed to require registration of firearms and enforce new laws already proven not to reduce crime. It is similar to laws enacted by Stalin and Hitler, and takes a giant step towards an unconstitutional police state in the U.S.
As usual, the new congress seeks to abridge our right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Anti-second amendment forces feel empowered by the Obama-Biden election, since both of these individuals are extremely anti-gun and have spent considerable energy in the past banning guns and limiting citizens' associated rights.
This bill is the work of wealthy bullies George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, and The Joyce Foundation. Their minions and operatives, including Rebecca Peters of IANSA, have dedicated their lives to disarming law-abiding citizens of the world.
The Centers for Disease Control, the National Academy of Sciences, and top drawer university researchers have determined that gun control laws do not work, even if they weren't unconstitutional. ABC's John Stossel reported that the idea that gun control laws work to reduce crime is a myth.
The bottom line, however, is that such Stalin-like laws are unconstitutional, and should stay that way. FBI statistics show that most violent crimes are not committed with firearms, and that 90% of those who are killed by guns are criminals themselves. These are not the law-abiding gun owners who own most of the guns in the U.S.
Further, illegal aliens perpetrate a significant amount of crime in the U.S. according to government statistics. It's simply not politically correct to point it out because of the pro-illegal immigration lobby.
I really don't want to see the U.S. collapse over a tyrannical government infringing rights. People are really angry over loss of other constitutional rights, and a growing number are coming to see that the Second Amendment is the one that guarantees the rest.
A world dictatorship with huge numbers of unarmed peons and a few elites is not what our founders had in mind. We need to retain and export our freedom and liberty to other nations--not import their dictatorships and fascism.
This bill has the mark of tyranny, and tyranny is what George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and other great American leaders warned us about. It is the first major step on a road to totalitarianism. We need to remind our elected officials of this. If they sponsor or pass it, they are acting against the U.S. Constitution, which they swore to uphold.
As usual, the new congress seeks to abridge our right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Anti-second amendment forces feel empowered by the Obama-Biden election, since both of these individuals are extremely anti-gun and have spent considerable energy in the past banning guns and limiting citizens' associated rights.
This bill is the work of wealthy bullies George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, and The Joyce Foundation. Their minions and operatives, including Rebecca Peters of IANSA, have dedicated their lives to disarming law-abiding citizens of the world.
The Centers for Disease Control, the National Academy of Sciences, and top drawer university researchers have determined that gun control laws do not work, even if they weren't unconstitutional. ABC's John Stossel reported that the idea that gun control laws work to reduce crime is a myth.
The bottom line, however, is that such Stalin-like laws are unconstitutional, and should stay that way. FBI statistics show that most violent crimes are not committed with firearms, and that 90% of those who are killed by guns are criminals themselves. These are not the law-abiding gun owners who own most of the guns in the U.S.
Further, illegal aliens perpetrate a significant amount of crime in the U.S. according to government statistics. It's simply not politically correct to point it out because of the pro-illegal immigration lobby.
I really don't want to see the U.S. collapse over a tyrannical government infringing rights. People are really angry over loss of other constitutional rights, and a growing number are coming to see that the Second Amendment is the one that guarantees the rest.
A world dictatorship with huge numbers of unarmed peons and a few elites is not what our founders had in mind. We need to retain and export our freedom and liberty to other nations--not import their dictatorships and fascism.
This bill has the mark of tyranny, and tyranny is what George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and other great American leaders warned us about. It is the first major step on a road to totalitarianism. We need to remind our elected officials of this. If they sponsor or pass it, they are acting against the U.S. Constitution, which they swore to uphold.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
RKBA in an Obama administration
The people have spoken and we have a new president-elect. Although our right to keep and bear arms was rarely mentioned outside of his campaign website, those of us who deeply value the U.S. Constitution recognize that we are in a never-ending battle to retain and regain our rights.
An interesting twist on the new Chief Executive is his advocacy for a "Civilian Security Force" that is "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military. View the speech where he rolled out his idea for such a body here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
What role might the RKBA community have in such a body? We will have to wait and see, since I find no evidence of any details being unveiled. What I do know is that, with a democratic sweep of the White House and both houses of congress, we are likely to see a wave of proposed gun-ban legislation.
This is no time to rest--our freedom and liberty are always under attack.
An interesting twist on the new Chief Executive is his advocacy for a "Civilian Security Force" that is "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military. View the speech where he rolled out his idea for such a body here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
What role might the RKBA community have in such a body? We will have to wait and see, since I find no evidence of any details being unveiled. What I do know is that, with a democratic sweep of the White House and both houses of congress, we are likely to see a wave of proposed gun-ban legislation.
This is no time to rest--our freedom and liberty are always under attack.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Election 2008 and the Second Amendment
As we close in on election time, it's useful to examine what the candidates are saying about the Second Amendment. We've already seen that, despite the Supreme Court's narrow ruling in favor of an individual's right to keep and bear working arms in the home for self-protection (see DC v. Heller), leaders are continuing to defy the Constitution and act as petty dictators. For example, both Fenty of Washington, DC, and Daley of Chicago are fighting the ruling--and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights--and making and enforcing rules and laws that are clearly illegal. They have rejected our founders' and framers' wisdom in favor of their own misguided agenda.
The 5-4 decision favoring Heller should have been unanimous, if the justices were all doing their jobs. Instead, 4 of them chose to toss our heritage to the wind in favor of enabling dictators to operate at all levels of U.S. government.
Amazingly, Barack Obama and Joe Biden continue to support infringing our rights and seek to undermine our right to keep and bear arms. Biden brags that he was an innovator in abridging rights: He actually pushed to ban what today are the most popular sporting rifles in the world before Clinton picked up on it in 1994. Although the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" was an abject failure--and unconstitutional, both Obama and Biden want to reinstate it and make it permanent.
John McCain and Sarah Palin both support our Second Amendment rights, and trust the people to act responsibly with respect to firearms. Rather than layer on more unenforceable laws that do nothing to stop criminals and only burden and/or abridge rights of the law-abiding, they seek to make sure we retain our right to self-protection.
Self-defense is one of the most basic drives in life. It is a natural right, that comes from our 'Creator,' however one interprets that term. Please go to the polls in November and vote your conscience. For educational purposes, here are brief excerpts from the Obama and McCain election websites:
Obama (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement)
"As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment ... Obama also favors commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. He supports closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. He also supports making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent ..."
McCain (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/77636553-6337-4ecd-b170-49e1c07d2fbd.htm)
"John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right that we have a sacred duty to protect. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway. ..."
The 5-4 decision favoring Heller should have been unanimous, if the justices were all doing their jobs. Instead, 4 of them chose to toss our heritage to the wind in favor of enabling dictators to operate at all levels of U.S. government.
Amazingly, Barack Obama and Joe Biden continue to support infringing our rights and seek to undermine our right to keep and bear arms. Biden brags that he was an innovator in abridging rights: He actually pushed to ban what today are the most popular sporting rifles in the world before Clinton picked up on it in 1994. Although the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" was an abject failure--and unconstitutional, both Obama and Biden want to reinstate it and make it permanent.
John McCain and Sarah Palin both support our Second Amendment rights, and trust the people to act responsibly with respect to firearms. Rather than layer on more unenforceable laws that do nothing to stop criminals and only burden and/or abridge rights of the law-abiding, they seek to make sure we retain our right to self-protection.
Self-defense is one of the most basic drives in life. It is a natural right, that comes from our 'Creator,' however one interprets that term. Please go to the polls in November and vote your conscience. For educational purposes, here are brief excerpts from the Obama and McCain election websites:
Obama (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement)
"As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment ... Obama also favors commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. He supports closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. He also supports making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent ..."
McCain (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/77636553-6337-4ecd-b170-49e1c07d2fbd.htm)
"John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right that we have a sacred duty to protect. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway. ..."
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Gun Control Misinformation in the Denver Post
The Denver Post featured an anonymous opinion piece advocating more gun control--which provided misinformation! [The misinformation has now been removed and noted at the bottom of the article.] Read the [revised] article and the comments at:
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_7716133
The article calls for the renewal of the failed "1994 Assault Weapons Ban," which was signed into law even though statisics suggested it would make no difference--since criminals, by definition, ignore laws. After it was deemed an abject failure after ten years, it was non-renewed.
The blaring error, however, is where the writer states that Maryland passed a similar ban at the state level in 2007. In fact, the proposed ban never made it out of committee, because Maryland lawmakers recognized that the law would be both ineffective and unconstitutional.
The XM-15 rifle mentioned is one of the most popular target shooting and varmint guns used by recreational shooters and farmers. And most of the features included in the 1994 ban were either cosmetic; for the safety of the user; or made them accessible to women, the disabled, the elderly, and people of short stature.
As one of the commenters noted, the Fraternal Order of Police and the National Association of Chiefs of Police do not support this ban. The strongest supporter is the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which includes foreigners from dictatorships and monarchies.
Mental health professionals have written exhaustively about copycats, who jump on the bandwagon when any crime is committed. These incidents occur in clusters, especially near holidays, as lunatics seek fame and express their anger towards a society where they've felt like outsiders. The fact is that lunatics and criminals will always be with us. Disarming ourselves is insanity.
Prohibition doesn't work. It simply creates a lucrative black market that cartels are delighted to take over. If guns are banned, only criminals will have them. Compared to the total number of guns owned by private citizens, the number used for crimes is insignificant.
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_7716133
The article calls for the renewal of the failed "1994 Assault Weapons Ban," which was signed into law even though statisics suggested it would make no difference--since criminals, by definition, ignore laws. After it was deemed an abject failure after ten years, it was non-renewed.
The blaring error, however, is where the writer states that Maryland passed a similar ban at the state level in 2007. In fact, the proposed ban never made it out of committee, because Maryland lawmakers recognized that the law would be both ineffective and unconstitutional.
The XM-15 rifle mentioned is one of the most popular target shooting and varmint guns used by recreational shooters and farmers. And most of the features included in the 1994 ban were either cosmetic; for the safety of the user; or made them accessible to women, the disabled, the elderly, and people of short stature.
As one of the commenters noted, the Fraternal Order of Police and the National Association of Chiefs of Police do not support this ban. The strongest supporter is the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which includes foreigners from dictatorships and monarchies.
Mental health professionals have written exhaustively about copycats, who jump on the bandwagon when any crime is committed. These incidents occur in clusters, especially near holidays, as lunatics seek fame and express their anger towards a society where they've felt like outsiders. The fact is that lunatics and criminals will always be with us. Disarming ourselves is insanity.
Prohibition doesn't work. It simply creates a lucrative black market that cartels are delighted to take over. If guns are banned, only criminals will have them. Compared to the total number of guns owned by private citizens, the number used for crimes is insignificant.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Wall Street Journal on gun control--the far left
Response to "Democrats Stall on Gun-Records Bill" by David Rogers, Wall Street Journal, September 21, 2007.
What makes this issue frustrating for me as a citizen is that even with 32 innocents dead at VA Tech, we focus on gathering information and causing undue burden to many millions of law-abiding citizens--and unnecessarily restrict their rights rather than facing the real issues head-on.
We ignore what happened just a few miles away from VA Tech when a similar mass-murderer entered another "gun-free" zone at Appalachian School of Law. Two students ran to their cars, and returned with handguns, and as soon as the perpetrator saw a gun pointed at him, he dropped his own. Only 3 died. The police arrived almost 5 minutes later. Imagine how many more would have died had these students not armed themselves and this lunatic had proceeded across campus in his deadly rampage. But no one tells that story, or the truth about how "gun free zones" attract such cowards.
Gun control does little but place undue burden on the innocent or deny them their only reasonable means of self-protection. Our founders, both in the Bill of Rights and all of their writings surrounding the crafting of our constitution, clearly indicated that U.S. citizens have the individual right to keep and bear arms. And that means for self-protection from aggression of any kind, as well as in response to tyranny.
We only argue about this now due to the acts of activist 20th century judges with political motives. Many elderly people have a gun for family protection they obtained in the service many years ago, or which was passed down through the family. My father lived in a remote rural area and experienced numerous occasions where he simply held a gun without pointing it and aggressive individuals calmed down and chose not to enter his home uninvited.
A recent London Times article reported the elderly in the U.K., where firearms restrictions prevent them from owning reasonable means of self-protection, are increasingly helpless victims of home invasions. New gun ban and gun control laws being proposed in the U.S. unfairly target the poor, elderly, women, people with disabilities, and people of short stature--whose only reasonable means of self-defense is a firearm. And worse, the various "assault weapons" bans seek to criminalize the very features that make firearms useable by this group. Only a linebacker has the size and strength to operate a gun without these features. The government has banned or limited sound suppression, which would protect individuals' ears--and then closes down ranges where law-abiding citizens enjoy shooting sports because of the noise! This insanity needs to stop.
Another problem is the very idea of "mental illness." The DSM-IV, arguably the bible of the mental health profession, is based on voting by politically selected opinion leaders--not science. Women who suffered post-partum depression or hormonally-based depression in menopause, or men who suffered due to a natural mid-life crisis or post-traumatic stress from their participation in war are not statistically more likely to commit crimes than those who never reported symptoms. In fact, it's likely that most people never report symptoms at all, out of fear they will be listed as mentally ill by mental-health witch doctors.
When most people were around guns all the time, kids routinely learned to shoot and care for guns when they were little. When kids had rifle shooting sports in the schools, no one paid much attention to guns. Kids carried them on school buses.
But now we've taken a frighteningly extremist turn, and little boys can't exercise their natural tendency to make sense of their world at war by drawing guns, tanks, and military artwork in school. This very cathartic and natural behavior is squelched by anti-gun extremism based on unfounded fear. Our children are losing their constitutional rights and being raised in a culture of fear.
Congress needs to drop the entire issue of gun bans and gun control and bring back gun sports to schools. Our founders trusted citizens to act properly. This proposed legislation makes our own leaders seem increasingly like those of fascist regimes. Notice in those countries where guns are banned that the criminals and corrupt government officials still have them, and use them to harm and kill innocent defenseless citizens.
Some of the anti-Second Amendment groups who seek to further limit or even destroy legal access to guns by law-abiding citizens, or fund such efforts, include the Brady Campaign, Rainbow PUSH Coalition (Jesse Jackson), the Million Mom March, Protest Easy Guns, the Joyce Foundation, Americans for Democratic Action, the League of Women Voters, the AARP, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, the Violence Policy Center, the Legal Community Against Violence, Ceasefire, and the American Hunters and Shooters Association.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police is one of the most dangerous organizations--comprised of people from dictatorships and countries that already banned gun ownership, they are extensively cited by U.S. researchers in all sectors, although the Fraternal Order of Police, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and the National Association of Chiefs of Police do not share their strident anti-Second Amendment views. These well-meaning but misguided individuals don't realize the repercussions their public policy has on law-abiding citizens, for whom a gun is the only reasonable means of self-protection.
Another unspoken reality--the law of supply and demand will prevail. Guns are easy to manufacture and distribute. If we limit access to or ban guns, crime organizations will quickly take over the lucrative business of manufacturing and distributing them--to criminals! Criminals and corrupt government officials will always have them, as will celebrities. Law-abiding citizens are the ones who lose their constitutionally-guaranteed rights--and potentially their lives.
This legislation needs to be dropped altogether. The National Rifle Association, Brady Campaign, and legislators potentially "seizing the moment" following the VA Tech shootings amounts to a nation-wide amygdala hi-jack. It is nothing more than a knee-jerk emotional response combined with misdirected opportunism. Whatever happened to a society built on trust?
What makes this issue frustrating for me as a citizen is that even with 32 innocents dead at VA Tech, we focus on gathering information and causing undue burden to many millions of law-abiding citizens--and unnecessarily restrict their rights rather than facing the real issues head-on.
We ignore what happened just a few miles away from VA Tech when a similar mass-murderer entered another "gun-free" zone at Appalachian School of Law. Two students ran to their cars, and returned with handguns, and as soon as the perpetrator saw a gun pointed at him, he dropped his own. Only 3 died. The police arrived almost 5 minutes later. Imagine how many more would have died had these students not armed themselves and this lunatic had proceeded across campus in his deadly rampage. But no one tells that story, or the truth about how "gun free zones" attract such cowards.
Gun control does little but place undue burden on the innocent or deny them their only reasonable means of self-protection. Our founders, both in the Bill of Rights and all of their writings surrounding the crafting of our constitution, clearly indicated that U.S. citizens have the individual right to keep and bear arms. And that means for self-protection from aggression of any kind, as well as in response to tyranny.
We only argue about this now due to the acts of activist 20th century judges with political motives. Many elderly people have a gun for family protection they obtained in the service many years ago, or which was passed down through the family. My father lived in a remote rural area and experienced numerous occasions where he simply held a gun without pointing it and aggressive individuals calmed down and chose not to enter his home uninvited.
A recent London Times article reported the elderly in the U.K., where firearms restrictions prevent them from owning reasonable means of self-protection, are increasingly helpless victims of home invasions. New gun ban and gun control laws being proposed in the U.S. unfairly target the poor, elderly, women, people with disabilities, and people of short stature--whose only reasonable means of self-defense is a firearm. And worse, the various "assault weapons" bans seek to criminalize the very features that make firearms useable by this group. Only a linebacker has the size and strength to operate a gun without these features. The government has banned or limited sound suppression, which would protect individuals' ears--and then closes down ranges where law-abiding citizens enjoy shooting sports because of the noise! This insanity needs to stop.
Another problem is the very idea of "mental illness." The DSM-IV, arguably the bible of the mental health profession, is based on voting by politically selected opinion leaders--not science. Women who suffered post-partum depression or hormonally-based depression in menopause, or men who suffered due to a natural mid-life crisis or post-traumatic stress from their participation in war are not statistically more likely to commit crimes than those who never reported symptoms. In fact, it's likely that most people never report symptoms at all, out of fear they will be listed as mentally ill by mental-health witch doctors.
When most people were around guns all the time, kids routinely learned to shoot and care for guns when they were little. When kids had rifle shooting sports in the schools, no one paid much attention to guns. Kids carried them on school buses.
But now we've taken a frighteningly extremist turn, and little boys can't exercise their natural tendency to make sense of their world at war by drawing guns, tanks, and military artwork in school. This very cathartic and natural behavior is squelched by anti-gun extremism based on unfounded fear. Our children are losing their constitutional rights and being raised in a culture of fear.
Congress needs to drop the entire issue of gun bans and gun control and bring back gun sports to schools. Our founders trusted citizens to act properly. This proposed legislation makes our own leaders seem increasingly like those of fascist regimes. Notice in those countries where guns are banned that the criminals and corrupt government officials still have them, and use them to harm and kill innocent defenseless citizens.
Some of the anti-Second Amendment groups who seek to further limit or even destroy legal access to guns by law-abiding citizens, or fund such efforts, include the Brady Campaign, Rainbow PUSH Coalition (Jesse Jackson), the Million Mom March, Protest Easy Guns, the Joyce Foundation, Americans for Democratic Action, the League of Women Voters, the AARP, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, the Violence Policy Center, the Legal Community Against Violence, Ceasefire, and the American Hunters and Shooters Association.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police is one of the most dangerous organizations--comprised of people from dictatorships and countries that already banned gun ownership, they are extensively cited by U.S. researchers in all sectors, although the Fraternal Order of Police, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and the National Association of Chiefs of Police do not share their strident anti-Second Amendment views. These well-meaning but misguided individuals don't realize the repercussions their public policy has on law-abiding citizens, for whom a gun is the only reasonable means of self-protection.
Another unspoken reality--the law of supply and demand will prevail. Guns are easy to manufacture and distribute. If we limit access to or ban guns, crime organizations will quickly take over the lucrative business of manufacturing and distributing them--to criminals! Criminals and corrupt government officials will always have them, as will celebrities. Law-abiding citizens are the ones who lose their constitutionally-guaranteed rights--and potentially their lives.
This legislation needs to be dropped altogether. The National Rifle Association, Brady Campaign, and legislators potentially "seizing the moment" following the VA Tech shootings amounts to a nation-wide amygdala hi-jack. It is nothing more than a knee-jerk emotional response combined with misdirected opportunism. Whatever happened to a society built on trust?
Saturday, September 22, 2007
WSJ article on gun control
I submitted a letter to the editor (LTE) of the Wall Street Journal in response to "Democrats Stall on Gun-Records Bill" by David Rogers, Wall Street Journal, September 21, 2007; Page A6
located at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119033829426334720.html?%20mod=politics_primary_hs and if they choose not to print it, I'll blog it.
Something I did not mention in my LTE: Notice that Rogers cites the views of a member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) rather than looking to the National Association of Chiefs of Police (NACOP)!
Why is that, Mr. Rogers? We're discussing our own U.S. internal policy, based on our own Constitution. You're publishing the opinions of foreigners and people who have access to armed body guards, discussing how to disarm more law-abiding American citizens.
What if "at-risk" kids were treated the way kids once were--taught to shoot safely as kids and that firearms are useful tools for self-protection and sport, and given opportunities to pursue shooting sports if it interested them?
Instead, they are raised in fear and guns are portrayed as evil. It just makes guns all the more alluring. I challenge politicians to set up a program that encourages young inner-city kids to become proficient with firearms. Air rifle would be fine for this. It builds discipline, is fun, and could get them to the olympics or into college.
Instead of looking to the flustered international community for their misguided bias (as if brainstorming bureaucrats can solve a problem they don't even understand)--why don't we draw on our own Constitution and the wisdom of our own Founders and be an example?
located at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119033829426334720.html?%20mod=politics_primary_hs and if they choose not to print it, I'll blog it.
Something I did not mention in my LTE: Notice that Rogers cites the views of a member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) rather than looking to the National Association of Chiefs of Police (NACOP)!
Why is that, Mr. Rogers? We're discussing our own U.S. internal policy, based on our own Constitution. You're publishing the opinions of foreigners and people who have access to armed body guards, discussing how to disarm more law-abiding American citizens.
What if "at-risk" kids were treated the way kids once were--taught to shoot safely as kids and that firearms are useful tools for self-protection and sport, and given opportunities to pursue shooting sports if it interested them?
Instead, they are raised in fear and guns are portrayed as evil. It just makes guns all the more alluring. I challenge politicians to set up a program that encourages young inner-city kids to become proficient with firearms. Air rifle would be fine for this. It builds discipline, is fun, and could get them to the olympics or into college.
Instead of looking to the flustered international community for their misguided bias (as if brainstorming bureaucrats can solve a problem they don't even understand)--why don't we draw on our own Constitution and the wisdom of our own Founders and be an example?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
