AmmoLand.com

No Virginia, There Is No Constitutional Right To Own A Gun

What a pile of Bull "Elephant" Shit...is that a Gun Owner under there?

Never Never Land, - -(AmmoLand.com)-

“There was a demonstration in Virginia over the weekend consisting of gun owners demonstrating for what or against what no one really knew and maybe they didn’t either. But it probably had to do with a second amendment right for them to own guns that doesn’t exist. And never did.If there is one thing both conservatives, many Democrats and most journalists have in common its their constitutional ignorance of the second amendment and their false belief that the second amendment has anything to do with an individual’s right to own a gun.

It doesn’t and it never did.

But to listen to Obama, and many Democrats and liberals like Ed Schultz the other night on MSNBC, along with conservatives, they assume they know what the amendment means, assume it gives individuals the right to own guns, and as is the case with so many mistaken assumptions made in America, they are all wrong.

How do we know? Let us count the ways. First, there has never been one single Supreme Court ruling that has held the Second Amendment gives people the right to own guns ( “Heller”, which many advocates like to quote, actually skirted the entire issue and focused instead on the status of the District of Columbia as not being a state and ducked on the whole question of the second amendment and states rights). You would think with all the controversy surrounding guns that somewhere along the line there would have been a case or a challenge where the Supreme Court addressed the issue, but there has never been an affirmation of the Second Amendment applying to individuals. Ever.

The entire and sole purpose of the second amendment was to give the states the right to have their own armed militia for the defense of the state. It had nothing to do with individuals owning guns for their own self defense. That already was the case. The second amendment guaranteed the states the right to have and maintain ( “keep and bear) arms for the defense of the state as a whole. And not just armed with guns. With any weapons they wished including cannon, war ships, rockets, anything, which is why state’s have armories. All anyone has to do to understand the second amendment is read it.

The right to keep and bear arms is not about what guns you have. It does not guarantee that you have the right to walk into a 7-11 carrying your gun and if you disagree, try doing in New York. They’ll find a nice cell for you maybe next to Plaxico Burress the former NY Giant wide receiver who is doing 3 years in jail for carrying a gun in New York City.

And what about the words ” to bear arms”? It does not mean to go hunting or to take your gun to a gun show, go target shooting, show it off or even to shoot a burglar. In 1789 America and to the Founders who authored the amendment “to bear arms”, meant only one thing — to go to war.”

Are you still reading?
Whats that.. some of you agree? Well if you are that dumb and want to read the rest of this lie filled twisted piece of socialist yellow journalism, be our guest you can find it at : http://tiny.cc/a_bunch_of_yellow_lies

We recommend you contact the author, Marc Rubin, and tell him how proud you are that we was kind enough to school us ignorant hicks on the true meaning of the 2nd amendment.  Thanks you wise sage.

About the Freedom Hating Author:
Marc Rubin has been an advertising art director, writer and television script writer having been the head writer for such TV series as “The White Shadow’ “Fame” and others. He was co-founder of The Denver Group which received much media attention for the ads and TV commercials he created pressuring the DNC to keep Hillary Clinton’s name on the ballot at the Democratic Convention. He is currently at work on a new TV series pilot and a number of film projects. He lives in New York City.

You can reach Marc at MRubin.Examiner@gmail.com

For those of you that agree you can leave you email and comments below and I am sure some of our readers will thank you too.

Filed under: Gun Rights News by Ammoland 13 Comments »

Maybe the Social Bigots of the Brady Campaign Should Switch To Decaf
“Social bigotry against gun owners is just as insidious as bigotry against any other group. – AmmoLand.com”

National Rifle Association

FAIRFAX, Va. --(AmmoLand.com)- The hand-wringers at the Brady Campaign must have figured out what the rest of us have known for quite some time.

Having been rendered all but entirely irrelevant, at least for the time being, the group is resorting to weird publicity stunts, in a vain attempt to again be taken seriously by its former not-so-secret admirers in the national anti-gun news media.

Last month, the group gave President Obama an “F” for “failed leadership” on gun control, accusing him of “squandering” the opportunity to push for tighter gun control laws.

Now it’s attacking Starbucks for allowing law abiding people to carry firearms in its stores as provided for by state law.

Get this doozie: “It’s everyone’s right to sit in a restaurant or coffee shop with their families without intimidation or fear of guns,” the Brady Campaign says, in its modern rendition of FDR’s famous “freedom from fear” quote.

Not surprisingly, while the Brady Campaign easily fabricates a “right” to feel free from fear, it angrily scoffs at the right to self-protection by encouraging its minions to sign a petition demanding that Starbucks establish a gun policy more restrictive than state law.

“I demand that Starbucks stand up for the safety of its customers and prohibit guns in your [sic] retail establishments,” the petition reads.

A call to Starbucks has confirmed what was pretty obvious on its face. The company is in the business to sell coffee, not jump in the middle of a Brady-generated squabble that state law has already resolved in favor of the right to carry firearms, in certain circumstances. Starbucks also isn’t in business to help Brady get its name in the paper.

The Brady Campaign’s resorting to this kind of silliness is understandable. It was once the most influential anti-gun group in town, able to claim some of the “credit” for the temporary imposition of the federal handgun waiting period between 1994 and 1998 and the federal “assault weapon” ban between 1994 and 2004.

But in recent years it has experienced the longest losing streak in gun control history.

• The waiting period has expired in favor of the instant check system.
• The 1994 gun ban has expired. T
• he number of Right-to-Carry states has continued to rise.

The list goes on, at the federal, state and local level. And the group’s core arguments about the Second Amendment were rejected entirely by the Supreme Court in the Heller case. President Obama even signed bills into law which included provisions allowing the carrying of firearms in national parks according to state law, and protecting the sale of surplus military ammunition components to the private sector.

And today, the media’s gun control darling is not the Brady Campaign’s leader, former Fort Wayne, Indiana mayor Paul Helmke, who spends his time blogging about gun control on the Huffington Post website, where members on the fringe gather to rant about mainstream America. Today, the leader of the gun control movement is billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who spends his time (and money) as mayor of America’s most influential city.

Gun owners who like coffee ought to drop Starbucks a line and respectfully encourage the company to stay above the fray into which anti-gun activists are trying to drag them. Click here to do so.

As for the Brady Campaign, let’s hope things continue at the present rate. If they do, before too long we’ll have to explain who the group was, before it was forced to close its doors for lack of interest.

Filed under: Gun Rights News by Ammoland 3 Comments »