3 out of 4 Americans Believe in Right to Own Firearms

You hear that Rebecca? In an earlier post Sebastian Sassi handily beat her in a debate on Al Jazeera’s English channel. In this debate she asserted that the majority of Americans supported more gun control and that we were in the minority. This Gallup poll suggests otherwise.

 

Public Believes Americans Have Right to Own Guns

Nearly three in four say Second Amendment guarantees this right

by Jeffrey M. JonesPRINCETON, NJ — A solid majority of the U.S. public, 73%, believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns. Twenty percent believe the amendment only guarantees the rights of state militia members to own guns.

(h/t) Gunpundit

Share/Save

Perhaps I was too hard on Alan Gura…

From subguns.com:

“Thanks for your support.

The solution to 922(o) will have to be political in the end. The fact is, outside the gun community, the concept of privately owned machine guns is intolerable to American society and 100% of all federal judges. If I had suggested in any way — including, by being evasive and indirect and fudging the answer — that machine guns are the next case and this is the path to dumping 922(o) — I’d have instantly lost all 9 justices. Even Scalia. There wasn’t any question of that, at all, going in, and it was confirmed in unmistakable fashion when I stood there a few feet from the justices and heard and saw how they related to machine guns. It was not just my opinion, but one uniformly held by ALL the attorneys with whom we bounced ideas off, some of them exceedingly bright people. Ditto for the people who wanted me to declare an absolute right, like I’m there to waive some sort of GOA bumper sticker. That’s a good way to lose, too, and look like a moron in the process.

I didn’t make the last 219 years of constitutional law and I am not responsible for the way that people out there — and on the court– feel about machine guns. Some people in our gun rights community have very…. interesting…. ways of looking at the constitution and the federal courts. I don’t need to pass judgment on it other than to say, it’s not the reality in which we practice law. When we started this over five years ago, the collective rights theory was the controlling law in 47 out of 50 states. Hopefully, on next year’s MBE, aspiring lawyers will have to bubble in the individual rights answer to pass the test. I know you and many others out there can appreciate that difference and I thank you for it, even if we can’t get EVERYTHING that EVERYONE wants. Honestly some people just want to stay angry. I’m glad you’re not among them.

You want to change 922(o)? Take a new person shooting. Work for “climate change.”

Thanks,
Alan”

Perhaps…

(h/t) Days of Our Trailers

Share/Save

This is it!

Tomorrow’s the big day ladies and gentlemen!

If you’re religious, pray for a good outcome. I shudder to think what might happen if they botch it up…

Share/Save

Why you should carry everyday!

Here’s a good article from WND.

Here’s a sample. Be sure and read the whole thing.

“The first step to stopping criminals from acting like they are entitled to rob, rape and murder is to get as many honest, law-abiding citizens as possible out in society carrying a gun. If the deranged killers knew they wouldn’t get a shot off before being gun downed, they would find a different outlet for their rage. Instead, they are most likely to find a location where everyone turns and runs like sheep or choose to meekly submit.

Usually, after a person submits he is shot.

Instead of kneeling down to be executed or running like frightened rabbits, people should use their right to bear arms and fight back. Only by stacking the deck in favor of the law-abiding can we hope to stop criminals from preying on innocent people. Two things need to happen to put criminals on alert.”

(H/T) to Jeffersonian

Share/Save

An abuse victim takes the cops to court

This is just incredible. This woman is lucky to be alive after all she’s been through. This woman did everything by the book, but restraining orders are only any good if they’re out of Kevlar. Armed self defense is the best option for coming out of a situation alive. The cops have no duty to protect you either.

I wish her luck in her suit, but I don’t think she will prevail.

“JONESVILLE - Vernetta Cockerham-Ellerbee peeled back the curtain of her bedroom window and saw the man she once loved enough to marry.

Hunched over in a field across the street, Richard Ellerbee toiled, shoveling clumps of dirt over his shoulder. She glanced past him to the nearby police station in this rural Piedmont town of 2,000. She spotted one of the department’s nine officers just beyond the station’s front door.

Cockerham-Ellerbee rang the station: He’s back, she whispered. He was once again violating the judge’s order to stay away. Police didn’t catch Ellerbee that day. Cockerham-Ellerbee repeatedly reported her husband’s threats during the summer and fall of 2002. He never spent a night in jail.

She didn’t know what he was up to with the shovel until he called days later to explain: He was digging graves to bury her and the children.

Ellerbee delivered on his threat in November 2002. He broke into their home and fatally stabbed his teenage stepdaughter, Candice Cockerham. He left Cockerham-Ellerbee for dead, too, slicing open her neck with a shard of glass.”

Read the whole thing here.

Share/Save

What the Anti’s Want

Sear and Hammer has a rather graphic video on his blog of a vicious attack in the Netherlands (Rotterdam) in which a woman was stabbed over seventy times by a knife wielding psychopath. The bystanders try ineffectually several times to “karate kick” the attacker into submission without success. This attack goes on for some time before someone is able to drag him off of her. Fortunately the victim lived, although she still suffers from the aftereffects. After trying brutally to kill this woman, the attacker only got four years in prison.

Four freaking years!

In a perfect world, a helpful bystander would have pulled out their gun and blown the motherf&%#@& away. No trial, no parole, no coming back to harm his victim in four years.

Here is what wikipedia has to say about Netherlands gun law:

“Dutch gun law is typical of the Western European approach. Firearm possession is not subject to any constitutional protections, but regulated simply in the Arms and Ammunition Act (Wet Wapens en Munitie). Weapons, including firearms, are divided into four categories, and for each of the categories a certain maximum punishment is set for “voorhanden hebben” (possession), and “dragen” (carrying in public).

Only citizens who are members of hunting and shooting sports clubs may obtain licences for weapons. And even then they may only get a licence for category III weapons (sports weapons).

Firearm possession and use by the military and the police is not subject to Arms and Ammunition Act, but regulated separately.

Sale is only for those age 17 or over.”

So basically, every law abiding citizen is unarmed. No wonder the only weapons on display in this video is a knife (held by the bad guy) and hands, feet and a stick (held by the law abiding citizens).

This is the kind of world the anti’s want, this is what they want for the USA. They want to make everyone defenseless against every criminal deprivation; like lambs to the slaughter.

Together, we can stop them, but it requires ever diligence and no compromise with evil. And just remember, when they say they don’t want to ban your kind of gun, it’s only a matter of time before they come for you, and by then there will be no-one to speak up for you.

There are no separate groups. There are no “hunters” or “shooters” or “shotgunners”, there is only “Gun Owners”. Think about it, with 80M plus gun owners in this nation, do you think the politicians would listen if 80M people stood together with one voice and said “No More!”?

I think they would.

So get involved, join a gun rights group, stand up for your rights, because no-one else is going to. Together, we can stop them and take back all of the rights the second amendment promises up.

UPDATE: Gun Debate Critic has also covered this story and I somehow overlooked it.

Share/Save

Typical…

Here’s some follow-up from the last post. In this news story, the stalkers family had this to say:

“Ryan Lee Bergner was a “gentle” and “kind” man, and his family “can’t even believe” he would break into a woman’s house and try to hurt her, his sister-in-law said Wednesday night.

“It’s just so shocking for such a gentle person to die in such a violent way,” said Becky Bergner, who is married to Ryan Lee Bergner’s brother.

“He did not go there that evening to hurt her, as far as the Ryan that we know.”"

Pardon me while I throw-up.

A few paragraphs down:

“Officers found Bergner, 41, wearing black leather gloves, sprawled out in the bedroom.”

Victim: “Wowee Mr. Bad Guy, what big gloves you have on!”

Bad Guy: “All the better to strangle you with my dear! Plus, I won’t leave any nasty fingerprints in your home or on your dead body!”

If I had a dollar for every time the family of the bad guy goes on about what a kind and gently man he was, how he fed the orphans and sheltered stray animal, I’d be a rich guy.

*sigh*

Share/Save

Dial 911 and Die…redux

Thanks to Oleg Volk.

Share/Save

Dreaming the implausible dream…

Consider this editorial by Joe Klock, Sr. of the Coral Gables Gazette. I’ve tried to break it down into manageable chunks, but just when I thought he’d stopped with the $#!^, there was even more.

I’ll comment only on parts of his editorial, if you’d like to read the whole thing click here.

“As written, B.O.R. #2. reads, “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.”

Some hold that this only protects our right to have well-organized militias, while others read the same words as sanctioning the private possession of lethal weaponry.

What Madison really meant was interred with his bones, leaving interpretation to generations of English majors, history buffs, pacifists, gun-fanciers and, in their current session, the oracular whizzes of our Supreme Court.”

He would have to pick the version with the most commas wouldn’t he? Different versions of the second amendment exist with varying numbers of commas. With or without the commas it makes perfects sense when read in context and by studying other things the founders had to say about it.

“After extensive thought, exhaustive research and pleasurable study of “Eats, Shoots & Leaves,” I have taken two firm positions on the issue: I will not speculate on what Founding Father Madison had in mind in 1789 or how he’d advise our Supremes in 2008.

Furthermore, I care not a rat’s butt about that, although it might be interesting to know how he’d feel about private citizens owning AK-47s.

I do care that 30,000 Americans die annually as a result of guns in the hands of evil and/or irresponsible shooters.”

Apparently you didn’t do too much thought, exhaustive research and pleasurable study did you. Perhaps you’d have been better off researching the origins of the second amendment instead of a book of punctuation. Then again, since you don’t care not a rats ass about the subject, you’re just going to empty your gray and black water tanks on us in the form of this editorial.

Personally, I think Madison would have been fine with private ownership of Ak-47’s by the unorganized militia.

Joe, would you care to back up your statistics from a non Brady or Joyce Foundation sponsored, or discredited study? I didn’t think so.

“I also respect the rights of all people to defend themselves, their loved ones and their possessions against criminals, using firearms if need be.

Neither would I prevent millions of hunters from engaging in their chosen pastime, although such peculiar pursuits as shooting doves barely seem to qualify as sporting events.

Finally, I recognize that total prohibition of private gun ownership would be only a tad more popular and effective than the ill-fated banning of John Barleycorn in the Roaring (but seldom boring) 20’s.

I submit, though, that those claiming the right to bear arms, either for fun or protection, assume concomitant obligations of responsibility and competence - not unlike those imposed on those who drive automobiles or perform heart transplants.

This question to those on both sides of the gun control controversy: Why not make training and licensure pre-qualifications for weapon ownership, with really heavy fines and jail sentences for those who don’t comply?

No law-abiding and well-intentioned citizen should object to such a restriction, given its obvious benefit to society.”

Oh my, where to start. First you respect the rights of individuals to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property with firearms. Second, you recognize hunters being able to pursue their sports whether you agree with them or not. Thirdly, you state (and I agree) that a total ban on firearms would be about as popular, and effective as prohibition was in the 1920’s. Good on you for that, but then you had to flush it all away with your next statement. You state that you can’t see how anyone would have an objection to treating gun ownership like driving a car. For someone who seemed to understand the rights of individuals earlier on, you prove that you really don’t get it. I shouldn’t be surprised.

Read the Bill of Rights Joe, I have. It’s okay if you have to look them up online and read through it, I’ll wait.

Done?

Okay, where in the Bill of Rights does it mention anything about driving a car, erm, horse and buggy? No? Okay, now what does the second one say? Okay, and no, it doesn’t mean the National Guard or the government giving itself permission to form a militia (how stupid would that be). Now, how many times do you see “The People” and “The State” mentioned? Okay, now read the other nine (original BOR) and tell me whether or not it’s clear on who has which right? Now why is the second amendment somehow different than the others? What’s that? It says “Well Regulated?” Do yourself a favor and research the meaning of the phrase as it was used at the time for the correct context. Oh that’s right, you really don’t care about the “technical woo-woo’s” as you put it.

Completely aside from this Joe, I and millions of other gun owners like me will never submit. Every gun confiscation in history was always preceded with registration. How do you think they knew where all the guns were? It sounds cliche, but “Legislation, Registration, Confiscation” has a lot more truth going for it than you’d imagine.

“This would counter the argument that if guns were banned entirely, only the criminals would be armed.

As to that lot of scoundrels, use of firearms in the commission of a violent crime could be raised to the level of a capital offense, with appropriate punishment. (Cruel and unusual, you say? Tell that to the victims and/or their families!)

Spare me, puh-leez, the legalese woo-woo and technical hair-splitting.

Simplistic though it may be, the remedy I suggest would save thousands of lives, make society safer and still allow private citizens to protect themselves, their loved ones, their hobbies and their worldly goods.

The doves are another matter, perhaps for another column when I really feel fearless.”

“If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!” *sigh* Okay, yes, it’s true. Following your plan though, the government could decide to take them at anytime they want. As to more severe punishment for criminal misuse of a firearm. Before they start doing that, I think they should make murder, robbery, rape, etc… against the law first. Oh wait, murder is against the law already and many states have the death penalty. You’d think with that in mind there’d be no murders. Aren’t criminals afraid of capitol punishment?

Also, regardless of what the Brady Bunch say, there are well over 20,000 gun laws already in existence with more being added all the time. It’s a constant battle to make sure my rights aren’t being infringed.

Simplistic? Nah, I’d never say that…I’m too polite to tell you that you’re full of crap!

UPDATE: Robb over at Sharp as a Marble has an excellent post concerning the 30,000 firearm deaths a year the anti’s like to crow about. Go read!

Share/Save

Sanity in Maine

Click here to read the whole thing.

‘Has anyone ever wondered why people with guns who have kissed sanity good-bye never take out their uncontrollable rage on the nearest police station?

Nor do they drive off to the nearest Army base, shooting range or hunting club to vent their murderous frustration.

It should only take a moment’s thought to understand why: Those places have people who have relatively easy access to weapons themselves.

It’s one thing to be homicidal and suicidal, but it’s quite another to consider that one’s murderous intent could be brought to an untimely halt through the immediate application of superior firepower.

However, there are places that draw these people like magnets, and they, too, are easy to locate: They are the places where the possession of firearms is forbidden, and that fact is widely advertised.

Some of these places even go so far as to publicly display their vulnerability to mass murder through the posting of signs that say “No Guns Permitted” or “Gun-Free Zone.”‘

Share/Save