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.
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.