NavigationBanners
McCain-Feingold
Active forum topicsRecent blog postsUser loginWho's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 821 guests online.
|
Add new commentNo More InfringementsSubmitted by Bill St. Clair on Fri, 2003-01-31 03:26.
[A letter I wrote to the Albany Times Union on 1 May, 2001. They didn't print it] An op-ed in the 4/30 TU claimed that additional infringements of the second amendment would not be sufficient to prevent future violence. I agree. Disarming the victims will never work. Hanging a "Helpless victims zone" sign on our schools will not protect our children. More likely the opposite. Simply brandishing a weapon is often sufficient to repel an attacker. Even though self-defense is a good reason for personal firearms ownership, that is not the purpose of the second amendment. Our right to keep and bear arms was guaranteed by the authors of America's Bill of Rights because they had recently fought for independence from British tyranny. America's militia armed with personal weapons defeated England's army. The spark that ignited the shot heard round the world was an attempt by the Crown to confiscate those weapons. The Founders wanted to ensure that future tyranny could be quashed in a similar manner. Anyone who would deny the ability of individuals to protect their families and their liberty is inviting history to repeat itself. Russia, China, Germany, Cambodia, and many other governments were able to murder millions of their own people because those people were first disarmed. Don't let it happen here. There's a name for a country where only the police have guns. It's called a police state.
Bill St. Clair add new comment | quote | 981 reads
Reply |
BlogrollFirearm NewsQuotesEvery man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission. -- L. Neil Smith Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings. -- L. Neil Smith Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents. -- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report (PDF) on gun control laws Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap") "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." -- L. Neil Smith Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP" Why Did It Have to be... Guns? Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put. If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you. If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims. What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him? -- L. Neil Smith The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war. -- Bill St. Clair Monthly ArchivesTTLB |
Recent comments
2 days 9 hours ago
3 days 15 hours ago
3 days 16 hours ago
1 week 17 hours ago
1 week 4 days ago
1 week 4 days ago
1 week 6 days ago
1 week 6 days ago
2 weeks 6 days ago
3 weeks 5 days ago