The Many Contexts of Gun Control

How Leaving America Changes What People Think About Guns

When you live abroad, you start to see your home country differently. I speak from experience: After moving to Switzerland in 2006, I began to see American policies for what they were—one country's way of doing things, but not necessarily the best way of doing things.

There are few examples that ring truer than America's obsession with guns. While the US leads the world in mass shootings, with 372 in 2015 alone, there has only been one mass shooting in Switzerland in the last 15 years. The Swiss rank fourth in the world in guns per capita—behind the US, Yemen, and Syria—but the ownership is rooted in a sense of safety and responsibility.

The recent shooting in Orlando, Florida, is a reminder that the United States has some of the loosest gun control laws in the developed world and the highest rate of gun-related homicide—about 15 times higher than 23 other high-income nations combined. And while news of mass shootings has sadly become normal in the United States, moving abroad can show how differently Americans view guns. We asked several American expats about how moving to another country changed their perspective on gun control. [...]

This is an interesting, thought provoking article. It has many embedded links to back up what it says. The comparisons with various other countries were interesting, especially with Switzerland, Israel and Mexico.

I support the 2nd amendment, but I don't believe it has to pre-clude responsible gun ownership. We strictly regulate the ownership and use of automobiles, because they are dangerous if not used properly. Should we not do the same with guns? I for one don't want to see assault weapons in the hands of mentally ill and unstable people.

Yes, it's a slippery slope. So aren't many things in life, yet they still need to be pondered and dealt with. On a slippery slope you tread carefully and take precautions when you have to. It can be done.

In the US, gun control tends to be a push-me pull-me of two extremes, an all or nothing argument, allowing no compromise. Yet, this article shows how some other countries have approached this issue; as a right, that comes with a responsibility. We don't have to do exactly what other nations do, but we can learn from their experiences, and perhaps adapt some of their better ideas to our own unique circumstances. Can we not find a better way for US?

     

Gun violence has declined since the '90's

WTF? How can that be, when the news headlines seem to be screaming the opposite? Take a look at the facts:

We’ve had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why.

Premeditated mass shootings in public places are happening more often, some researchers say, plunging towns and cities into grief and riveting the attention of a horrified nation. In general, though, fewer Americans are dying as a result of gun violence — a shift that began about two decades ago.

In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 — a total of 11,208 firearm homicides. The number of victims of crimes involving guns that did not result in death (such as robberies) declined even more precipitously, from 725 per 100,000 people in 1993 to 175 in 2013.

Older data suggests that gun violence might have been even more widespread previously. The rate of murder and manslaughter excluding negligence reached an apex in 1980, according to the FBI. That year, there were 10.8 willful killings per 100,000 people. Although not a perfect measure of the overall rate of gun violence, the decline in the rate of murder and manslaughter is suggestive: Two in three homicides these days are committed with guns.

This decline in gun violence is part of an overall decline in violent crime. According to the FBI's data, the national rate of violent crime has decreased 49 percent since its apex in 1991. Even as a certain type of mass shooting is apparently becoming more frequent, America has become a much less violent place.

Much of the decline in violence is still unexplained, but researchers have identified several reasons for the shift. Here are five. [...]

Read the whole thing for embedded links, graphs and more.

Gosh. So, if we have become a less violent society with fewer gun deaths, why does the media make the opposite seem to be true?

Ask yourself, what else has happened since the 1990's? The internet. And with it, instantaneous 24/7 news reporting. So now, if somebody somewhere shoots somebody, it can be reported all over the world within the hour.

Unfortunately, that is unbelievably attractive to the malignant narcissists who want to become instantly famous and recognized, even if it means killing themselves in the process. So we have malignant narcissists seeking fame and recognition at any cost, and a news media looking to instantly report anything and everything tragic and terrible. The two feed off each other, creating a lethal combination. It also makes less (gun deaths) seem like more, because nearly ALL of them get reported widely now.

Some people think taking guns away from everyone is the answer, punishing everyone for the actions of a few. Gun control is a bigger issue than can be tackled in a single blog post, and I'm not going to try here. But I had done a prior post, about Gun Studies and Politics, that has some relevance.

The topic is so polarized, that it can be difficult to get accurate or complete data, as one side or another wants to cut funding, when they start to see answers they don't like. Yet a lot could be learned from what has been tried and failed, as well as what has been tried and worked. I believe that if objectivity could be maintained, some answers could be found that don't include trampling on the 2nd amendment, or denying law abiding citizens the right to protect themselves. Cooler heads and less retoric are needed. Can it be done?
     

The most sensible thing I've heard lately

About the rancher conflict in Nevada, from Idaho Congressman Raul Labrador:

Idaho's Labrador: Nevada rancher battling BLM should have paid his bills

In another example of his keen political instincts, Idaho GOP Congressman Raul Labrador distanced himself from Sen. Rand Paul and others championing Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy.

Labrador is a tea party favorite and friend of the Kentucky senator eying a 2016 Republican presidential run. At Labrador's invitation, Paul will speak to the Idaho Republican convention in June. Bundy has been celebrated by other politicians and conservative media, most notably Sean Hannity on Fox News.

But Labrador told Ada County Republicans he has trouble lionizing Bundy because he's ignoring the rule of law in failing to pay over $1 million in grazing fees to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management for running his cattle on public property since 1993.

Labrador stepped away from a chance to laud Bundy Tuesday night. On Wednesday, the New York Times reported on Bundy's comments about "the Negro" and his suggesting slavery wasn't so bad after all. Paul initially was unavailable for comment Wednesday but on Thursday issued a statement, saying, “His remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him."

Apparently smelling a rat, Labrador didn't fall into such a trap when asked about the Bundy case at a candidate forum hosted by the Ada County Republican Central Committee. Otherwise he'd be joining Paul and others in damage control.

"One of the concerns I have in the Bundy case is that you have a person who appears to have been violating the law," Labrador began. "And that really concerns me because it makes it very difficult for somebody like me to speak up against what the BLM is doing.

"Because the federal courts, again and again and again, have told this gentleman that he owes money in federal grazing rights, in federal grazing permits," said Labrador, who graduated from high school in Las Vegas, about 80 miles from Bundy's ranch. "Now, he claims that he doesn't owe that money but the courts have disagreed with him."

Labrador went on to college at BYU and earned his law degree at the University of Washington.

Labrador cited the case of another Nevada rancher, Wayne Hage, who battled the BLM in court but continued to pay his bills. Late in life Hage married then-Idaho Congressman Helen Chenoweth, a predecessor of Labrador's in Idaho's 1st District. Both Wayne and Helen Chenoweth-Hage are now deceased.

"The BLM did the same things to (Hage) and when they did it to him he was actually paying his grazing permits and he was doing all the things that he needed to do," Labrador said.

Setting aside the fame enjoyed by Bundy, Labrador continued with a critique of BLM policy and mixed in a shout-out for gun rights.

"Clearly the federal government is overreaching. What I find sad — even if you agree that Mr. Bundy should have paid his grazing permits — it's really scary to think that the federal government can come in to collect on a debt at the point of a gun," Labrador said.

"That should never happen. They should have put a lien on his property; they should have put a lien on the cows; they should have put a lien on a bunch of different things. But they should never be coming in at the point of a gun and trying to take you off a property.

"And that's why — this is the difference between people who believe in the Second Amendment and who don't believe in the Second Amendment: The Second Amendment isn't there so we can hunt. The Second Amendment is there so we can protect ourselves from the government."

Labrador's answer brought hearty applause, once again demonstrating his deftness in appealing to a very conservative base without compromising his oaths to uphold the law as an attorney and a congressman.

He's long brushed off as a distraction questions about President Obama's birthplace, saying he believes the president was born in Hawaii and should be opposed on policy grounds. He's attempted to convince supporters hostile to immigration reform that a compromise would be healthy for humanitarian and economic reasons and essential for the future of the Republican Party. Labrador was born in Puerto Rico and moved to Nevada with his mother while in junior high school.[...]

The government didn't NEED to turn this into an armed confrontation; they had other options. They didn't have to point guns at fellow Americans. So why did they choose to, instead of the other options available to them? That seems to be the most important point to me. But the media cirrus seems to focus on everything else but that.

The Republican Party could use more sane voices like Raul Labrador's.

And it's worth noting, that in the Wayne Hage case that Labrador referred to, Mr. Hage's estate eventually won the case against the BLM. But read the details; it's chilling. It was a long, hard and ugly battle. The judge in the case accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.”

Mr. Hage married a congress women as his second wife, before he died. You have to wonder if he would have prevailed, without her help? Officials of the federal government wield tremendous power; they have to be kept in check, as this case shows all too clearly.


This was interesting too:

Conservative racial math can’t cancel out Cliven Bundy

[...] On Fox News, my colleague Charles Krauthammer goes further, making the point that romanticizing a rejection of federal authority often ends in embarrassment. “This is a man who said that he doesn’t recognize the authority of the United States of America. That makes him a patriot?” Krauthammer asked. Anti-government language has been a powerful rhetorical tool, but it is difficult to sever those sentiments from the neo-Confederate sentiments that trail stubbornly behind it. Maybe it is time to try to elevate a different path to conservative stardom.

That such routes might be tough to walk given the Republican Party’s recent history does not mean they do not exist. The libertarian writer Jonathan Blanks, who is a friend and a powerful influence on my own thinking, is a powerful advocate for two ideas that could be made in concert more frequently: that defenses of secession are obscene on libertarian grounds and that African-Americans have plenty of reasons to seek limits on government power. [...]

     

Guns Studies and Politics

The two seem to be inseparable:

What Researchers Learned About Gun Violence Before Congress Killed Funding

I found the article... irritating, in many ways. Too much speculation and "What Ifs". Yet, I would be just about ready to give up reading it, when it would say something very reasonable or thoughtful.

Any such future study would be incomplete without also looking at countries that have strict gun control laws, and the impact of such laws on crime. The worst assertion in the article was that homes with guns were not safer than homes without. Gun protected homes that don't experience crime because they are protected, don't show up in statistics. Anyway, there is plenty of food for thought. As some of the comments following the article show. It will always be a contentious topic.
     

One woman's decision to buy a handgun

A reluctant gun owner

I had never wanted a gun. Now I own a Smith & Wesson revolver. Why?

[...]

Home invasion robberies no longer seemed quite so abstract after a friend down the street was burglarized one day at noon, while she was in the shower.

[...]

Having accepted the reality of a gun in the house, I began to envision dark scenarios. A potential intruder, once an abstraction, became a real force to be vanquished. My husband and I began discussing strategies, defensive positions, reaction times, risks we would have to take. To every new defense, I realized, there is a corresponding new risk.

As we talked, one thing became obvious: I would never be able to defend myself if my husband wasn't home. I'm too small and the shotgun he purchased is too large, too heavy, too awkward.

"We should have a pistol," I finally declared. "Something I can use."

Still, I wrestled with the idea of whether I could become someone else, someone capable of violence. Was I really prepared to kill someone who threatened my property or my life?

Reluctantly, sorrowfully, I found my answer.

And that is how I came to be standing at the counter last week in the gun shop, talking to the salesman, Walt. "I want a revolver," I explained. I had tested several handguns at the range a few days earlier and had realized that semiautomatic pistols are activated by slides that are impossible for me to pull back. The spring is too strong. The only alternative was a revolver, which needs to be cocked and aimed — after loading, of course. The revolver holds six bullets while the semiautomatic pistol uses a clip with nine or 10 bullets. "Six should be enough to stop anyone," I was told.

I had already proved, at the range, that I could pull back the trigger and hit a target. I knew how to assume the proper stance. So when Walt handed me a Ruger, I pointed it at the wall to see how it felt.

Walt, a patient man with gray hair and bifocals, watched as I tried various revolvers before finally settling on a Smith & Wesson, which has a smaller grip than the Ruger and is more in sync with the size of my hand.

It was only when I'd made my decision that I looked around at my fellow customers. I had imagined they would be skinheads or slick-haired, oily types who would poke at each other in amusement at my questions, my stance, my purchase.

Instead, there was a clean-cut fellow wearing shorts and a Polo T-shirt. Several older guys were talking about deer and moose and elk. Everyone spoke softly. They were intent on business. Yes, one man did have a tattoo. But there was also a very nice-looking girl in her 20s, wearing one of those long black summer dresses with the little straps, looking quite glamorous. I saw her examining a Beretta. Obviously, her hands are stronger than mine, I thought, watching her pull back the slide. I resolved to exercise my hands — 20 minutes at the piano playing scales and Bach fugues every morning.

HT to Barry at BAR for the excerpts. But read the whole thing, at the link below:

Sonia Wolff (a novelist who lives in LA)

It's reminded me that I've been wanting to buy a revolver. I think I'll do it sooner rather than later.


Also see:

The Second Amendment vs Leviathan

     

U.N. Global Small Arms Treaty threatens your right to self defense

EDITORIAL: The U.N. gun grabber

American gun owners might not feel besieged, but they should. This week, the Obama administration announced its support for the United Nations Small Arms Treaty. This international agreement poses real risks for freedom both in the United States and around the world by making it more difficult - if not outright illegal - for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

The U.N. claims that guns used in armed conflicts cause 300,000 deaths worldwide every year, an inordinate number of which are the result of internal civil strife within individual nations. The solution proposed by transnationalists to keep rebels from getting guns is to make the global pool of weapons smaller through government action. According to recent deliberations regarding the treaty, signatory countries would be required to "prevent, combat and eradicate" various classes of guns to undermine "the illicit trade in small arms." Such a plan would necessarily lead to confiscation of personal firearms.

This may seem like a reasonable solution to governments that don't trust their citizens, but it represents a dangerous disregard for the safety and freedom of everybody. First of all, not all insurgencies are bad. As U.S. history shows, one way to get rid of a despotic regime is to rise up against it. That threat is why authoritarian regimes such as Syria, Cuba, Rwanda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone endorse gun control.

Political scientist Rudy Rummel estimates that the 15 worst regimes during the 20th century killed 151 million of their own citizens, which works out to 1.5 million victims per year. Even if all 300,000 annual deaths from armed conflicts can be blamed on the small-arms trade (which they cannot), governments are a bigger threat to most people than their neighbors. [...]

Which is why we have the 2nd Amendment. And why we have to fight to keep it.

     

The Swiss, and their Guns

I got a link to this in my email recently. The email was titled "Why nobody invades Switzerland":



In school, I had learned that nobody invaded Switzerland, because it was surrounded by mountains. But I'm sure that being heavily armed and well-trained in the use of their guns also had something to do with it.
     

More British Gun Paranoia Extremism

It's hard to believe this is real:

Beyond Parody

A former soldier in England has been arrested and convicted (and may even go to jail for five years) because he found a gun in his yard and he turned it over to the police. I presume this is in part a reflection of the anti-gun ideology embedded in UK law, but don’t prosecutors and judges have even a shred of discretion to avoid foolish prosecutions and/or protect innocent people from absurd charges? Here is the news report:

Read the whole thing. The British police sound like Nazis. And what is the Jury's excuse?


About British gun laws:

England and Gun Control --- Moral Decline of an Empire

RESULTS ARE IN ON BRITISH GUN LAWS

Britain’s Gun-Control Folly
     

Where has all the ammo gone? Not even .22?

We can't even buy .22 ammo anywhere in town, everywhere is out-of-stock. And it seems it's like that all across the country:

OUT of AMMO: Nationwide ammo shortage present here

[...] Much of the demand comes from continued high law enforcement demand, the same demand that led to shortages two years ago. Police agencies around the nation have become more militarized in recent years and two trends within this militarization have led to greater police ammunition demand.

[...]

Law enforcement agencies have been rapidly increasing their ammunition consumption because of how they are rearming, causing a permanent increase in demand. Just as ammunition manufacturers began to cope with that increase, a second run, based upon a downward-turning economy and rising fears of laws targeting gun and ammunition, dramatically expanded demand yet again.

Shortages of ammunition and firearms can be expected to continue for as long as it appears our overreaching federal government is a threat to our individual liberties, our economy continues to falter, and our police agencies keep militarizing. [...]

The article does give details to support both of these explanations. It also says manufacturers are struggling to meet the demand. What I want to know is, when will I see ammo on the shelves again?


Nationwide Ammunition Shortage Hits U.S.
Skyrocketing demand has been emptying the shelves of America's gun stores. Here's why.

[...] At Farm & Fleet, notices are posted on the ammunition shelves apologizing for the shortage and saying it is because of high customer demand and the inability of manufacturers to meet orders. A portion of the shelf space usually holding cartridge boxes is now holding other items. Even usually plentiful .22-caliber ammunition is scarce.

Skartveit said he has supplies of shotgun shells and .22-caliber cartridges, but is having problems stocking handgun and assault rifle-type ammunition. Further, he also is finding it difficult to get supplies, such as primers and lead bullets, for those who reload their own cartridges instead of buying factory-made cartridges.

"Last week I called the largest distributor in the country and they laughed at me," Skartveit said. "They said they don't know when they'll get more in. They have 450 salesman in the country who don't have anything to sell. I have people wanting ammo for handguns and I can't get it for them." [...]

I'll bet there are some Democrats who want exploit the situation, by making ammo and ammo materials hard to obtain. If they can't take people's guns away, they will try to stop and/or control the ammo, with creepy things like "Encoded Ammunition" (Bullet and Cartridge Case Serialization).

There are many reasons to strenuously oppose this legislation:

[...] People would be required to forfeit all personally-owned non-encoded ammunition. After a certain date, it would be illegal to possess non-encoded ammunition. Gun owners possess hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition for target shooting, hunting and personal protection. Consider that American manufacturers produce 8 billion rounds each year.

Reloading (re-using cartridge cases multiple times) would be abolished. There would be no way to correspond serial numbers on cartridge cases, and different sets and quantities of bullets.

People would be required to separately register every box of "encoded ammunition." This information would be supplied to the police. Most states do not even require registration of guns. Each box of ammunition would have a unique serial number, thus a separate registration.

Private citizens would have to maintain records, if they sold ammunition to anyone, including family members or friends.

The cost of ammunition would soar, for police and private citizens alike. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturing Institute estimates it would take three weeks to produce ammunition currently produced in a single day. For reason of cost, manufacturers would produce only ultra-expensive encoded ammunition, which police would have to buy, just like everyone else.

A tax of five cents a round would be imposed on private citizens, not only upon initial sale, but every time the ammunition changes hands thereafter.

Shotgun ammunition cannot be engraved. Shotgun pellets are too small to be individually engraved. Shotgun cartridge cases are made of plastic, which would be difficult to engrave.

Criminals could beat the system. A large percentage of criminals' ammunition (and guns) is stolen. Criminals could also collect ammunition cases from shooting ranges, and reload them with molten lead bullets made without serial numbers. [...]

In so many ways, these new ammo laws are just another way of disarming private citizens:



No Bullets, No Shooting!.

In the last year, so-called “encoded” or “serialized” ammunition bills have been introduced in 13 states—Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Washington. Their goal: Destroy our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

All of these bills would prohibit the manufacture and sale of ammunition, unless the bullets and cartridge cases are marked with a code and registered to the owners in a computerized database. Most would also require gun owners to forfeit any non-coded ammunition they possess. For example, Arizonas bill says, “Beginning January 1, 2011, a private citizen or a retail vendor shall dispose of all noncoded ammunition that is owned or held by the citizen or vendor.” Tennessee’s says, “All non-coded ammunition . . . shall be disposed.” And in Pennsylvania, “An owner of ammunition . . . not encoded by the manufacturer . . . shall dispose of the ammunition.”

These bills include no compensation for the loss of millions of rounds of privately owned ammunition. But that’s not the point. Nor is the fact that ammunition encoding hasn’t been tested, let alone proven. Nor is the fact that criminals would easily figure out the numerous, obvious ways to beat ammunition registration.

The point of these bills is to prevent gun owners from having ammunition for defense, practice, sport and hunting. The fact that these bills are not gun bans is a mere technicality because, in practical terms, ammo bans are gun bans.

That isn’t the end of the anti-gunners’ attacks on ammunition in the current Congress and state legislative sessions. Ammunition bans are taking almost as many legislative and regulatory forms as there are types of ammunition to outlaw. [...]

The article goes on with a lot more details, about current legislation, and the people and history behind it all. This is a real fight, folks.


UPDATE 05/06/09:

The "un-sexy" Truth About the Ammo Shortage

The war over coded ammo is still on, for sure, but the actual causes of this current ammo shortage are actually rather mundane and easily explained.

Much thanks to the reader who sent me the link to the article I used in my update.
     

Can political correctness destroy a nation?

Great Britain is a good contemporary example. For years, creeping political correctness has been making inroads there, much as it has here in the USA. But over the last several years it's gotten really ugly and scary.

From A. Millar at the Brussels Journal:

Forty Years On: Sleepwalking Toward the Tiber’s Edge

[...] History repeats itself, yes; but history does not repeat itself as we might expect. Today, we are obsessively fighting the last war. Everyone’s enemy is a “racist” and a “fascist.” These terms are invoked by the far-Left, Jack Straw, David Cameron, and even the B.N.P., to describe their opponents. Yet at the same time we see an extreme ideology spilling out from politics and becoming increasing absorbed by the judiciary, police, schools, local councils, etc., all against the common sense of the public. And we also see a rapidly expanding Islamic militancy, occasionally becoming linked to public figures such as Ken Livingstone, and, consequently, accepted by the public.

Free speech – which has been so horribly eroded in Britain – was meant to guard against extremism and the persecution of both individuals and larger groups because of the establishment of some dubious ideology. Today, it would appear, that prosecutions for hate speech are based not on what is said but who is speaking. Protests in support of al-Qaeda are deemed free speech, as is downloading terrorist material and discussing the validity and possibility of carrying out terrorist attacks. Similarly, as think tanks such as the Centre for Social Cohesion and CIVITAS have said, Britain’s governmental and judicial establishments have failed to tackle honor crime, with police, councils, and teachers afraid of being branded racist if they make any attempt.

[...]

Today we are faced with a “multiculturalism” that has eroded British culture and the constant drumbeat of racial “equality” that treats people not as human beings but mere racial blocks. As Rageh Omaar has said in an op-ed piece on Powell’s so-called “Rivers of Blood” speech for The Daily Mail, “Instead of multi-culturalism, we are getting tribalisation,”

[...}

We have reached a point, then, at which racially or culturally distinct ghettos – the unfortunate results of long-term multiculturalism – are mirrored at both lower and higher levels of government and party politics. Moreover, if some young Muslims are surfing the net, and finding inspiration in al-Qaeda and websites peddling Islamic radicalism, so too do we see a similar phenomenon at government level, with, for example, Livingstone now having gained the support of suicide bombing apologist Dr Azzam Tamimi – which he has not rejected. It is remarkable to think that not only Muslims, but Muslim extremists, are now playing an important, if not decisive, role in British politics. Yet, it is not difficult to imagine that Britain fifty years from now will have a political reality not entirely unlike that of Lebanon’s today. We must hope that it does not take the same sort of upheaval – such as Powell predicted for a multicultural Britain – to get there, but such a hope seems to be fading. Two thirds of the residents of Britain now believe immigration will lead to violence. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) The article gives many examples of how even the mere accusation of "racism" is used with the force of law to stifle free speech and debate on a multitude of issues, at every level of society.

As "identity politics" grows stronger, so does political correctness and it's concomitant restrictions on free speech. When it dominates as a political force, assimilation stops, and "multiculturalism" becomes more like "tribalism", dividing people and destroying a unifying national identity. This weakens the people as a whole, and is the first step in conquering and controlling them.

Am I mistaken, or did this really start to get very bad in Britain in 1997, when they passed a law making private ownership of handguns illegal for citizens? Crime went up by two thirds, and everything else seemed to start going to shit real fast. If that ever happens in the USA, I believe it will be the beginning of the end.

An unarmed population is completely dependent on government for protection, and must live to serve the government, instead of the government existing to serve them. Read the whole article for the horrific details; there is a lesson in it for us all.


Related Links:

Political Correctness — The Revenge of Marxism

Did Tony Blair advance a "Culture of Lies"?

What is the Nature of Multiculturalism?

Our Culture, What’s Left Of It


About British gun laws:

England and Gun Control --- Moral Decline of an Empire

RESULTS ARE IN ON BRITISH GUN LAWS

Britain’s Gun-Control Folly
     

The Battle Continues for 2nd Amendment

Maynard at the Tammy Bruce Blog posted this a while back:

How the Left Plans to Take Your Guns

While dining out, he overhears a foghorn leftist justifying to her friend the confiscation of all guns from citizens. Among other things this woman claimed that collective rights usurp our individual rights. It has a kind of logic, yet Maynard points out how it's not even consistently applied:

[...] It's also worth noting the irony of how Leftists will interpret the Constitution very loosely when they want to invent a new "right", but they turn into super-strict constructionists when trying to control people they dislike. For example, where exactly do you find your Constitutional right to unrestricted access to abortions? Even those who favor a woman's right to choose (as I do) must acknowledge that the Constitutional argument is marginal. It's said to derive from the right to privacy, which also isn't enumerated, but is a generous interpretation of protection from unreasonable search and seizure (the Fourth Amendment). I heard Gloria Allred expalin that abortion rights were a product of the "Constitutional penumbra". I won't necessarily argue with that, but can't we have a little consistency here? Someone who finds meaning in the Constitution's penumbra ought to also respect the actual words. [...]

This is a popular tactic with the left, and the views Maynard overheard are worth noting since they are actively being used against all gun owning citizens to dilute the meaning and authority of the 2nd Amendment. It's worth reading the whole thing.


More recently, Maynard posted this:

The Second Amendment: Saved?

[...] In a 2-1 decision, a U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia has overturned the DC gun ban. The court ruled that the right to bear arms is "not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

In other words, in the opinion of this Court, the Second Amendment acknowledges YOUR right to be armed. You may think this is obvious and that any other opinion would have been a gross offence against common sense and decency. But, legally speaking, the question had been undecided.

This ruling does NOT end the issue. This is a regional court ruling. Only a Supreme Court ruling would settle the legal argument for the nation. [...]

Saved? No. It's a step in the right direction, but a future Supreme Court decision against gun owners could still be disastrous.





Related Links:

www.saveourguns.com

Second Amendment victory in D.C.

Crime Emergency in "Gun Free" Washington, DC