Millions of American gun owners did not commit that atrocity, and lashing out at us will not prevent crimes in the future
I expect to see Democratic candidates fall over themselves to present the purest image of a gun control advocate, and I equally expect that nothing in it will have anything to do with actual safety.
A bill in the New York State Assembly seeks to make purchasing more than twenty (20) rounds of ammunition for “assault weapons” in a one hundred twenty day period a felony.
What we can guardedly expect here is a recognition that the Second Amendment isn’t only for the home—in other words, “bear” is in the text, and we may finally see that part to be treated seriously.
An acceptable red flag law would emphasize the presumption of innocence, but gun control advocates only want to remove as many guns from private hands as possible despite the facts.
Gillette has come late to the discussion, and their contribution was a solid commitment to saying nothing new and nothing particularly challenging. So welcome to the party, Gillette.
Dealing with what creates demand, rather than sniping at the supply, is the sensible approach—if sensible means based on evidence and sound reasoning.
If gun-rights supporting liberals cannot find a place in organizations like the NRA, GOA, SAF then the exercise of those rights will be gone in short order.
The fight to protect gun rights is a coalition of the willing, not something that we can only do if we all agree on every plank of a particular party’s platform.
My purpose in this article is to offer some friendly advice from a supporter of gun rights who ideally would like to join the NRA, but at the very least wants success for the goals that we share.
Allowing law enforcement to pay attention to crimes that correlate with future escalations, would reduce a lot of violence.
The glee with which people who are opposed to basic rights discuss the murder of millions in pursuit of their goals should tell the country exactly why we must stop them.
The Versailles Treaty is reminiscent of today’s advocates to restrict gun rights in several ways.
They propose to require a trolling through of the last three years of a prospective gun buyer’s social media accounts before a gun sale will be allowed.
The personal connection and experience will gain ground that no amount of advertising and speechifying can get for us.
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.