California Gun Control Protest and Individual Rights
Firstly, there's a protest in California against an ammunition registration bill, AB 2026. People will be meeting on West Steps of the Capitol of Sacremento on May 6, 2008 at 9:00 AM. If you're a hunter, firearm enthusiast, sportsman, etc. and are around that area, please go and protest for your rights as an American citizen. I would surely attend if I were able to. You can find more information here: http://www.crpa.org/showpages.aspx?pid=1410
Also, the Supreme Court is supposed to have a ruling on the definition of the Second Amendment. Personally, I thought that was already done a few times and that it was decided that (obviously) the right to bear arms is an individual right. ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" sounds pretty self-explanatory to me.)
Anyway the guy writing this article ( http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/04/28/2008-04-28_public_safety_in_supreme_danger.html ) is a usual ignorant, anti-gun moron. I particularly think this part is humorous:
"Strict judicial scrutiny [on current gun laws] would mean the end to a wide range of common, legitimate gun safety laws that Americans nationwide rely on to preserve public safety and protect children. These include bans on carrying concealed firearms; bans on assault rifles; trigger lock requirements; bans on guns in government buildings and schools; bans on possession by felons; and perhaps even basic licensing laws."
To address his remarks point by point:
1 - Criminals don't obey laws against carrying concealed weapons anyway.
2 - Assault rifles account for a very small percentage of weapons-based crime.
3 - Trigger-locks are as good at preventing accidents as simple knowledge.
4 - Criminals intending to hurt people don't care about a sign telling them "no guns".
5 - Okay, a real point. A don't believe felons that have been convicted of violent crime should have guns.They might get them anyway illegally, but there should be restrictions on them to at least make it a little more difficult.
6 - People should not need licenses to enact the freedom of defending themselves with a firearm.
I also noticed the writer of this article's use of "to preserve public safety and protect children." That's usual anti-gun schpeel trying to get women to think emotionally rather than logically to vote for gun control because they think it will protect their children. And this works frighteningly well despite how absurd it is.
Remember, trigger locks may keep children from firing guns, but they also keep their owner from firing them in time of emergency. There are better ways of keeping children safe like A) teaching them to respect guns and know they're not toys or B) keep them out of reach. Statistics show that more children die of poisoning or drowning in buckets of water than gun accidents anyway. At least guns have safeties.
Let's stop the nonsense.
~S
Also, the Supreme Court is supposed to have a ruling on the definition of the Second Amendment. Personally, I thought that was already done a few times and that it was decided that (obviously) the right to bear arms is an individual right. ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" sounds pretty self-explanatory to me.)
Anyway the guy writing this article ( http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/04/28/2008-04-28_public_safety_in_supreme_danger.html ) is a usual ignorant, anti-gun moron. I particularly think this part is humorous:
"Strict judicial scrutiny [on current gun laws] would mean the end to a wide range of common, legitimate gun safety laws that Americans nationwide rely on to preserve public safety and protect children. These include bans on carrying concealed firearms; bans on assault rifles; trigger lock requirements; bans on guns in government buildings and schools; bans on possession by felons; and perhaps even basic licensing laws."
To address his remarks point by point:
1 - Criminals don't obey laws against carrying concealed weapons anyway.
2 - Assault rifles account for a very small percentage of weapons-based crime.
3 - Trigger-locks are as good at preventing accidents as simple knowledge.
4 - Criminals intending to hurt people don't care about a sign telling them "no guns".
5 - Okay, a real point. A don't believe felons that have been convicted of violent crime should have guns.They might get them anyway illegally, but there should be restrictions on them to at least make it a little more difficult.
6 - People should not need licenses to enact the freedom of defending themselves with a firearm.
I also noticed the writer of this article's use of "to preserve public safety and protect children." That's usual anti-gun schpeel trying to get women to think emotionally rather than logically to vote for gun control because they think it will protect their children. And this works frighteningly well despite how absurd it is.
Remember, trigger locks may keep children from firing guns, but they also keep their owner from firing them in time of emergency. There are better ways of keeping children safe like A) teaching them to respect guns and know they're not toys or B) keep them out of reach. Statistics show that more children die of poisoning or drowning in buckets of water than gun accidents anyway. At least guns have safeties.
Let's stop the nonsense.
~S
Leave a Comment
