In the future, nominees should be questioned on their positions regarding how rights and government power are to be treated.
The gun community has embraced the tinkerer all along, and that spirit is alive among the digital generation. If we care about gun rights, we have to win over the hackers in the coding generation.
A greater respect for personal choice is at stake here, and adults imposing themselves on children is dissonant with that value.
A gun without ammunition is just an oddly shaped paperweight, and laws that make buying that ammunition more difficult are nothing but an attempt to chip away at gun rights generally.
The problem for advocates of control is that as the courts turn increasingly against them, they’ll have to learn how to use persuasion, not force.
What 3-D printed guns represent is distributed power. The people who want to concentrate power oppose letting control slip into the hands of us common men…
If the government comes after one type of political advocacy and we say nothing, the government will come after us soon enough and there will be no one left to speak on our behalf.
The exercise of a right does not equate automatically to having that right funded by the government—the latter requires evidence that it’s a good idea.
It’s hard to be shocked when someone who works to curtail the rights of others commits the ultimate infringement.
Since each generation must come to terms with what the Constitution means, it’s good to see that we’re once again headed in the right direction.
Whose speech is acceptable, what does the Second Amendment mean, and does anyone know where 3-D printing will go?
After decades of the culture war, we all should understand that making rights a partisan issue and picking and choosing which we’ll support or oppose on that basis is a bad idea for the whole country.
As traditional and thus comforting as this separation is, leaving rights up to how the political football gets moved about the field is a fine way to see those rights violated.
When it comes to guns, the AMA is welcome to their opinion, as every other American, and the rest of us are welcome to point out how ill-informed their opinion is.
Gun control advocates need to believe this, but the reality is that with the current composition of the Supreme Court, there will be a lot of controversies in the law that go unresolved.
What gun control advocates are trying to get away with is to avoid doing the work of showing that their demands will achieve their stated goals.
If we were to adopt California’s approach, we could just as well declare that the First Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right of each of us to disagree with the government.
To quote Elvis, a little less conversation, a little more action, please. Showing up to the NRA convention and claiming to support the Second Amendment isn’t enough.
The president’s job, so far as I see it, is outreach. And whatever we may think of North’s activities in the 80s, he is not the best choice for today.
Movies are not real life, and actors are generating imagined worlds. Having said that, there is a corollary. In the same way that movies aren’t real, neither is a celebrity.
While some gun enthusiasts gush over the latest piece of Combat Tupperware, the people who ascribe mystical significance to firearms are gun control advocates.
The Millcreek Township School District of Erie, Pennsylvania has decided to arm teachers, but not with what you think…
If we are asked to accept what he said on one case because he said it, it’s fair to ask whether we ought to accept something else he said for the same reason.
To the advocates of gun control, law-abiding gun owners are vicious sociopaths who do not feel for the children.
What people who want to repeal the Second Amendment must understand is that the First Amendment became law at the same time. If we amend one why not the other?