Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Charlie T Waite

Super Moderators
  • Content Count

    4,904
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    46

Everything posted by Charlie T Waite

  1. During ABC's town hall event with former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic Party's presidential candidate provided a garbled response to a question about criminal justice reform. In particular, he wrongly suggested that when police fire their weapons at suspects, they could shoot to wound instead of shooting to kill. "You can ban chokeholds, but beyond that you have to teach [the police] how to de-escalate circumstances," said Biden. "So instead of anybody coming at you and the first thing you do is shoot to kill, you shoot them in the leg." This was just one line in a very long, rambling answer to a question about police violence—but it stuck out for its sheer absurdity. The suggestion betrays a total lack of understanding about how guns work. Note that it was not some slip of the tongue: Biden has previously proposed this exact idea. Contrary to the former veep's repeated assertions, neither the cops nor anyone else—except perhaps James Bond—could plan to shoot people in the leg as a matter of routine practice. It would take an expert marksman to accomplish that feat consistently. Unless a target is at close range, standing perfectly still, it's very difficult to hit a specific location on the body. In reality, people are often moving during shootouts, which means that legs and arms can be the hardest part of the body to hit. "An average suspect can move his hand and forearm across his body to a 90-degree angle in 12/100 of a second," wrote Bill Lewinksi in a paper for the Force Science Institute. "He can move his hand from his hip to shoulder height in 18/100 of a second. The average officer pulling the trigger as fast as he can on a Glock, one of the fastest- cycling semi-autos, requires 1/4 second to discharge each round." If an officer's life is actually threatened, hitting the suspect in the leg is no guarantee the threat will be neutralized. People who have been hit in the leg or arm are not immediately incapacitated, which is why the police keep firing until a suspect is down. Real life is not like an episode of 24, or a Mission: Impossible movie! It's true that some police officers are too eager to fire their weapons in the first place, and idiotic police tactics—like no-knock raids—place them in situations where overreactions are likely to occur. But the public policy intervention needs to occur before the shooting starts. Shooting to wound is not a realistic tactic in the vast majority of cases, and it's embarrassing that Biden doesn't know this. https://reason.com/2020/10/15/joe-biden-townhall-cops-shoot-in-the-leg/
  2. By L. Neil Smith. October 16, 2020. (lneil@netzero.com) PATREON:https://www.patreon.com/lneilsmith Attributed to L.Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise I've been holding back for a long time, readers and friends. This subject makes me angrier than any other and raises my blood pressure, which, at my age, I can ill afford. However, now that we're well into the process of seating another Supreme Court Justice -- one who declares that she upholds the law as originally written -- it is long past time to apply a little of this originalism, this textualism, where the Second Amendment is concerned. The District of Columbia v. Heller was hailed far and wide as a landmark Supreme Court case because it allegedly established that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own and carry weapons. It was, in fact, a terrible decision that invented a Constitutional government power, out of whole cloth (as critics insist Roe vs. Wade invented the right to an abortion), to interpret and regulate the individual's right to keep and bear arms -- which means that it is no right at all, but a privilege generously granted by the state. No such power exists. No such power can possibly exist, given the recent violent experiences and the frame of mind of the Founding Fathers. These men had just fought a long, bloody revolutionary war against the most powerful empire in the history of the world, a revolutionary war that they had astonished everyone -- including themselves -- by winning. The ludicrous contradiction written into current law, demanding that the government must first give you its permission to acquire the means to protect yourself from the government, is stark insanity. It is likewise the left's idiotic conceit (wilfully constructed) that the Second Amendment was only written to protect the right of the people to keep and bear smooth-bore, single-shot, muzzle-loading muskets, the arms that happened to be in circulation at the time the Bill of Rights was written. They deliberately overlook the fact that the Second Amendment was actually written to maintain parity between the weapons of the military, whatever they might be, and those of the civilian population, in order to preserve civil liberties against missteps by a government grown hostile to freedom as ours mostly is today. Inventive futurists like Jefferson and others would have appreciated that weapons were changing even as the amendment was being written, acquiring rifled barrels, multiple chambers, and different forms of ignition. The Second Amendment today, properly read, supports unsupervised civilian ownership of fully automatic M-16s and AK-47s. Read the damned amendment. Look up the dictionary meaning of the word "infringed". It "means sneaked up on". It means "nibbled away at". It means "tampered with, even a little bit." Every single, solitary gun law in this country, federal, stsate, and local, is, itself, completely and inarguably illegal. And since the self-stated purpose of the amendment is to protect and defend "the security of a free State", it is treason. It is an utter fairy tale that machine-guns were outlawed in the 1930s because gangsters were accustomed to employing them. (Investigation shows that the Thompson .45 famously used in the St. Valentine's Day massacre was probably wielded by a cop.). Machine-guns were outlawed because proto-communist President-elect Franklin Delano Roosevelt was deathly afraid of a coup. One had already been tried against him, he had narrowly survived an assassination attempt, and he greatly feared that more of the same was coming. Back then, even the most treasonous collectivists realized that simply banning automatic weapons would be illegal, so they enacted crippling taxes against them, understanding that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Sadly, machine-guns in civilian hands might have prevented the death and destruction of the 2020 summer riots. It is time for organizations like the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, the Second Amendment Foundation, and others to stop fiddle-fooling around. Decade after decade of bargaining and appeasement have utterly failed to work against the enemies of freedom who want us to be their slaves. Follow the lead of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, instead, the heirs of the only people to confront naked tyranny in their own homeland. The very existence of an abomination like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives constitutes an infringement against the bright of the people to keep and bear arms. It is exactly the same as assigning Nazis to protect synagogues.Recent moves against "bump stocks" and the refusal to legalize silencers are proof that Donald Trump is receiving very bad advice about the Second Amendment from within his own ranks and needs somebody wiser and better-informed to school him on its history and purpose. ************************ Award-winning novelist and essayist L. Neil Smith is a retired gunsmith and auxiliary police officer, Publisher and Senior Columnist of L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise and the author of over thirty-five books. Look him up on Google, Wikipedia, and Amazon.com. He is available, at professional rates, to write columns, articles, and speeches for your organization, event, or publication, fiercely defending your rights, as he has done since the mid-1960s. His writings (and e-mail address) may also be found at L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise, at JPFO.org or at https://www.patreon.com/lneilsmith, to which you can contribute, directly. His many books and those of other pro-gun libertarians may be found (and ordered) at L. Neil Smith's THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE "Free Radical Book Store" The preceeding essay was originally prepared for and appeared in L. Neil Smith's THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE. Use it to fight the continuing war against tyranny.
  3. The National Rifle Association has long been the boogieman for anti-gunners. They’re perpetually convinced that if the NRA were gone, or at least countered, they could usher in their anti-gun Utopia and all would be right with the world. That’s not remotely likely, of course, but they’re free to dream. It’s to that end that Gabby Giffords unveiled her latest effort. Giffords, the gun control advocacy organization founded by former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) after her attempted assassination, is set to launch a new national firearms group intended to take on the power and influence of the National Rifle Association (NRA). Gun Owners for Safety will be launched off of a coalition that was founded in 2018 with chapters in Colorado, Minnesota and Texas. It seeks to offer gun owners an alternative to the NRA, which remains stringently opposed to most anti-gun violence proposals. “I think whether you’re talking about politics, whether you’re talking about lobbying, whether you’re talking about culture change, what’s vitally important is that we focus on the millions of Americans at the center of our politics. If we’re going to have long-term durable change in this country, it can’t just be the activists on the left and the activists on the right. We really have to move the center,” Giffords Executive Director Peter Ambler said. … Organizers have already connected with nearly 50,000 gun owners in all 50 states as well as Washington, D.C., and some serving abroad “who are fed up with the NRA,” Ambler said. Members include hunters, collectors, veterans, former law enforcement and others who value firearm ownership but also want to reduce gun violence. “These men and women were eager, at a time when our values of our country are being debated, to raise their hand and show politicians, show the country, that the vast majority of gun owners support safer gun laws,” Ambler said, calling expanded background checks a main focus of the group. Oh, wow, a whole 50,000? I’m sure the NRA and their five million members are shaking in their boots. Of course, the timing of this is intended so as to take advantage of an embattled NRA as the group takes criticism from both the left and even other pro-gun folks who don’t agree with decisions made by the organization’s leadership. However, it’s important to note that none of these 50,000 people are remotely likely to be members of the NRA or other pro-gun group in the first place. After all, Gun Owners for Safety isn’t about firearm safety at all. It’s about gun control, plain and simple, and those who have already joined his anti-gun jihadist group are in it for the gun control. Everyone can see through the euphemisms, after all. The thing that gets me, though, is that Giffords was supposedly started to push for gun control, but they’ve been so damn ineffective that now they’re starting another group to try and push for gun control. It’s a little ironic to me. Regardless, I don’t think this group will have the impact Giffords is hoping for. After all, most gun owners are either luke warm on politics in general or are vehemently pro-gun. Don’t be surprised if those membership numbers never go up https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2020/10/14/giffords-launches-new-group/
  4. Gun control activists are generally of the same mind about the end result of their agenda: a gun-free society or one where gun ownership is a privilege doled out to only a select few. How they get there, however, still results in some intra-movement disagreements. On the one hand, there are guys like historian Allan Lichtman, who calls for repealing the Second Amendment in a new book (no, I won’t be running out to buy a copy). On the other hand you’ve got activists like Nancy Farrar Halden, a longtime advocate for gun control laws who argues for a more incremental approach. Ironically, Lichtman’s “repeal it” position, which on the face of things is the more extreme point of view, would be far more likely to fit within the confines of the Constitution than Halden’s incrementalism. Lichtman at least recognizes that the Constitution poses a barrier to the enactment of the kinds of gun control laws he wants to see in place, while Halden simply ignores the protections of the Constitution in her calls for a rolling series of gun control laws. Halden’s first problem is comparing gun ownership to owning a car. Back in the 1960s, she argues, traffic fatalities were much more common than they are today, but thanks to a steady stream of technological improvements and legislation, fatal car accidents have dramatically declined. Why can’t we do the same with guns, she wonders? The first bit of technology that Halden mentions is ShotSpotter; a privately owned company that contracts with cities to “alert police when and where gunfire is occuring,” in her words. In fact, that’s the only bit of tech that Halden includes in her column, which is odd since her entire premise revolves around comparing the technological advances in the automotive industry that reduced fatal accidents to today’s firearms industry. Halden doesn’t even bring up so-called smart guns, which would theoretically align with her idea that technology can work to reduce accidents and misuse of firearms. I say theoretically because, practically speaking, there are all kinds of issues with smart gun technology. Still, it’s bizarre that a gun control activist like Halden didn’t even bring up the idea of mandating smart guns given the fact that Joe Biden has stated that eventually, only smart guns should be allowed for sale in the United States. Instead, Halden embraces more old school gun control measures, and a lot of them. We should learn from the historical development of auto safety and enact legislation and adopt policies that are designed to reduce gun violence. In many states, promising laws like universal background checks and extreme risk protective orders (ERPOs) have proven track records for saving lives. No, they actually don’t. There’s absolutely no evidence that universal background check requirements actually lead to an increase in background checks, and given the impossibility of proactively enforcing the measures, it’s shouldn’t be a surprise that in states like New Mexico, which put a universal background check mandate on the books in 2019, there have been no arrests or prosecutions for violations of the law. Exreme risk protective orders, or “red flag” laws, also don’t have a track record of success. In Indiana and Connecticut, the two states where red flag laws have been in place for the longest period of time, firearm-related suicides have declined, but the increase in non-firearm suicides has more than made up the difference. Red flag laws do absolutely nothing to ensure that individuals deemed to be a danger to themselves or others receive any sort of help, which is a glaring red flag of its own. Permit to purchase laws put local law enforcement in charge of issuing a permit to buy a gun. Who better than they know who should and shouldn’t have a gun? All these laws have been shown to be effective, yet the gun lobby and its advocates automatically oppose every proposed gun law that has the potential to save lives. I’m curious to know what Halden thinks about the idea of systemic racism in the criminal justice system. I assume that she’s bucking the views of most of her fellow progressives, since she’s okay with the idea of cops determining who, exactly, gets to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. Meet all of the qualifications but still just don’t seem “suitable” under the discretionary standards of local law enforcement? No right for you. There are many incremental changes that we can make to ensure better safety from gun violence: closing the gun-show loophole, adopting ERPOs to protect abused partners and spouses and those with suicidal tendencies, holding gun manufacturers to rigid safety standards, banning assault-type weapons or regulating them like machine guns, limiting magazine size and enacting safe-storage laws to protect children. Yeah, there are so many “incremental changes” that can be made that Halden repeats herself. “Closing the gun show loophole” is covered under universal background checks. We’ve already gone over ERPOs. “Holding gun manufacturers to rigid safety standards” is code for “suing them for the criminal misuse of their products,” while banning commonly owned firearms and ammunition magazines and placing them under the auspices of the National Firearms Act is anything but incremental. That would be the biggest attack on the right to keep and bear arms in our nation’s history, and would impact most of the 100,000,000 Americans who own firearms. Again, Lichtman at least acknowledges that the Second Amendment is an impediment to these types of gun control laws. Halden has no such concerns. In her mind, banning the most commonly owned ammunition magazines in the country is just like automotive manufacturers making three-point seat belts standard in cars. For Halden and other gun control activists, it’s not really about making firearms “safer” through technology, it’s about reducing the number of gun owners. Their idea of gun safety ultimately boils down to “you shouldn’t own a firearm.” Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist, as well as the co-author of "Heavy Lifting: Grow Up, Get a Job, Start a Family, and Other Manly Advice" with Jim Geraghty. He lives outside of Farmville, Virginia with his family. More posts from Cam Edwards https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2020/10/14/incremental-change-2a-rights/
  5. What happens when you combine a classic TV series with a classic movie....
  6. Anti-gun senators like Dick Durbin of Illinois and California’s Dianne Feinstein spent Tuesday morning doing all they could to portray Judge Amy Coney Barrett as a judicial extremist and activist judge when it comes to the Second Amendment as Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings entered the question and answer phase. Durbin in particular tried to hammer Barrett on her dissent in a case called Kanter vs. Barr, in which Barrett argued that a felony conviction for a non-violent crime shouldn’t automatically result in a lifetime loss of the right to keep and bear arms. Durbin accused Barrett of a double standard when it comes to the restoration of rights; okay with Rickey Kanter “buying an AK-47,” but opposed to Kanter regaining his right to vote. It’s a gross misreading of both Barrett’s opinion in the Kanter case, as well as the Constitution itself. First, as Barrett herself explained to Durbin, the Kanter case didn’t involve his right to vote, so she never actually offered her opinion on restoring felons’ voting rights. Additionally, as law professor Jonathan Turley pointed out on Fox News shortly after the exchange between Durbin and Barrett, we’re talking about two different parts of the Constitution. Guidelines on voter eligibility and who can exercise the right to vote are left up to the various states, and there are many different rules depending on what state you’re looking at. The Fourteenth Amendment does note that the right to vote cannot be abridged “except for participation in rebellion, or other crime“, but still makes it clear that states are the ultimate arbiters of who can cast a ballot on Election Day. The right to keep and bear arms, on the other hand, is an individual right that is protected, but not established by the Constitution, and there’s nothing in the Second Amendment that talks about prohibiting the right to vote for those convicted of crimes. As Barrett wrote in her dissent in Kanter: While scholars have not identified eighteenth or nineteenth century laws depriving felons of the right to bear arms, history does show that felons could be disqualified from exercising certain rights—like the rights to vote and serve on juries—because these rights belonged only to virtuous citizens. Some maintain that the right to bear arms is similarly limited by a virtue requirement. On this view, the legislature can disarm felons because of their poor character, without regard to whether they are dangerous. The problem with this argument is that virtue exclusions are associated with civic rights—individual rights that “require[] citizens to act in a collective manner for distinctly public purposes.” For example, the right to vote is held by individuals, but they do not exercise it solely for their own sake; rather, they cast votes as part of the collective enterprise of self-governance. Similarly, individuals do not serve on juries for their own sake, but as part of the collective enterprise of administering justice. Some scholars have characterized the right to keep and bear arms as a civic right, because it was “one exercised by citizens, not individuals …, who act together in a collective manner, for a distinctly public purpose: participation in a well regulated militia.”… Heller, however, expressly rejects the argument that the Second Amendment protects a purely civic right. It squarely holds that “the Second Amendment confer an individual right to keep and bear arms,” and it emphasizes that the Second Amendment is rooted in the individual’s right to defend himself—not in his right to serve in a well-regulated militia. The “civic rights” approach runs headlong into both propositions. Barrett defended herself capably from Durbin’s attack on her judicial reasoning during the confirmation hearing, and it was Durbin himself who ended up looking foolish. The Illinois senator and supposed champion of criminal justice reform actually argued that that non-violent felons should suffer a permanent loss of their Second Amendment rights because they have a “propensity” to commit a violent crime in the future. Amy Coney Barrett would allow non-violent felons to regain their Second Amendment rights, while Dick Durbin would consider them guilty of pre-crime. Barrett’s views can be found within the text of the Constitution itself, but if you want to find Durbin’s point of view, you’ll have to read Phillip K. Dick’s “The Minority Report” instead. Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist, as well as the co-author of "Heavy Lifting: Grow Up, Get a Job, Start a Family, and Other Manly Advice" with Jim Geraghty. He lives outside of Farmville, Virginia with his family. More posts from Cam Edwards https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2020/10/13/acb-right-vote-keep-bear-arms/
  7. U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- As the contentious confirmation hearings begin for Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett, anti-gun groups are voicing concerns she will endanger so-called “gun safety laws” and headlines in various publications perpetuate what is essentially a myth about restrictive gun control, while a George Mason University professor has just published a lengthy Liberty & Law Research Paper supporting the notion of individual gun rights and the necessity of the Second Amendment. In this screen snip from live coverage of confirmation hearings on Judge Amy Coney Barrett, anti-gun Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal expressed his concerns about her votes on Second Amendment issues. (YouTube, CBSN) USA Today’s recent headline about Judge Barrett repeated the myth: “Trump Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett puts years of gun safety progress at risk.” Rights activists consider it bad enough for the media to lean left, but even worse for them to adopt the gun prohibition lobby's vocabulary. Mother Jones headlined its piece, “Amy Coney Barrett’s Confirmation Could Be a Huge Setback for Gun Safety Laws.” In fact, these are not “safety” laws at all, but “controls” and the National Review just pointed readers to the 41-page paper authored by Prof. David Bernstein at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School that will raise some eyebrows. Perhaps Bernstein’s most interesting observation for anyone who has been living in the Pacific Northwest over the past seven months is found on Page 3 of his report. It might be seen as “strong medicine” by advocates of concealed carry as an individual right. “Yet the looting, rioting, and general mayhem on display in the Summer of 2020 in cities throughout the United States,” Bernstein writes, “often unimpeded by law enforcement, buttresses the argument that a proper right to armed self-defense must include provision for law-abiding Americans to protect themselves outside their homes.” It’s bothersome stuff to Barrett critics who are concerned her appointment to fill the high court vacancy left by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will open a door, if not a floodgate, for consideration of Second Amendment cases. Since 2010’s ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago—the landmark Second Amendment Foundation case that nullified Chicago’s handgun ban and more importantly incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment—the high court has rejected several gun rights cases including 10 earlier this year. Many believe it’s because Chief Justice John Roberts might not be counted on to cast a pro-rights vote. If Judge Barrett is confirmed, that worry goes away, but is replaced by another concern among gun prohibitionists that the Second Amendment will be expanded. For gun rights advocates, it’s not a question about expansion, but of Second Amendment restoration; as SAF’s Alan Gottlieb has often explained, “Making the Second Amendment great again.” As noted in an Oct. 10 CNN report quoting CNN Supreme Court analyst Steve Vladeck, “It seems likely that the confirmation of Judge Barrett would remove that uncertainty and open the pipeline to a flurry of cases, perhaps ranging from the constitutionality of criminal felon-in-possession statutes to large-capacity magazine bans.” The American Bar Association has rated Judge Barrett “well qualified,” according to the Washington Times. No member contended she is not qualified, the newspaper said. But more than 30 gun prohibition lobbying groups sent a letter to Senators Mitch McConnell, Charles Schumer, Lindsey Graham and Dianne Feinstein Oct. 8 declaring, among other things, “The Supreme Court already includes four justices who have publicly indicated an eagerness to expand the meaning of the Second Amendment in a way that is at odds with over two hundred years of American jurisprudence and long traditions of gun regulations, contradicts the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment, and could significantly undermine gun safety laws enacted by democratically-elected legislatures across the country. This unsupported interpretation of the Constitution is not only at odds with the Framers’ vision, but with the overwhelming majority of American people who want elected officials to enact evidence based gun safety laws to address the gun violence public health crisis. Therefore, we fear that rushing this nomination would force a dangerous ‘guns everywhere’ agenda on the country — an agenda that your constituents have repeatedly rejected at the ballot box.” And during his opening remarks, Monday, perennially anti-gun Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) expressed worries that Judge Barrett would add energy to the high court for the purpose of removing strict gun control laws. But rights are not supposed to be subject to popular vote. That’s what makes them “rights.” And that brings the focus back around to Prof. Bernstein’s analytical essay. The opening paragraph in his introduction says, “The individual right to keep and bear arms has two primary rationales. The first is to provide citizens with a means to oppose tyrannical government. The second is to provide citizens with a means to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property from criminal aggression.” Translation: It is not about hunting deer or ducks. A few paragraphs later, Bernstein observes, “The unwillingness or inability of local authorities to stop looting, rioting, and other lawless and violent behavior is powerful evidence that, contrary to the Heller dissenter’s position, Americans still need firearms to defend themselves.: Bernstein’s article offers a scathing criticism of authorities in the Pacific Northwest cities of Seattle and Portland. “Perhaps the most outrageous example of local officials’ dereliction of their law enforcement duties comes from Seattle,” he writes. “For twenty-three days in June, armed leftists occupied six blocks of the city’s Capitol Hill neighborhood, declaring the area a “police-free” zone they called the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” (‘CHAZ’), later changed to “Capitol Hill Occupied Protest” (‘CHOP’). Bands of self-appointed, gun-toting “guards” set up encampments and patrolled the area, looted stores, smashed windows, and prevented residents from leaving or visitors from entering— in the process devastating businesses located in the occupied blocks.” Turning his attention to Portland, Bernstein added, “As of this writing…Portland has had three months of nightly riots. By June 24, only a few weeks into the riots, they had caused over $4 million in property damage and $18 million in lost revenues for Portland businesses. The city police’s efforts to defend ordinary people against the lawlessness were underwhelming at best. On August 16, for example, which marked the eightieth night of demonstrations, municipal authorities reported that over sixty 911 calls (reporting theft, vandalism, suspicious activity, hit and runs, and burglary, among other things) went unanswered.” On Page 31 of his report, Bernstein writes, “Because the police and other law enforcement officers have been so derelict in stemming the violence that occurred in cities across the United States in the Summer of 2020, armed citizens throughout the country have taken matters into their own hands.” Over the past several months, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and FBI National Instant Check System data, millions of people have purchased guns for the first time in their lives. Whether this has any effect on how they vote will be determined next month. But all of those gun sales rattle the gun prohibition lobby. They do not want another pro-Second Amendment justice on the high court. A close look will find many of these people also support efforts to “re-imagine law enforcement,” whatever that means, and reduce police department budgets, which would subsequently lead to police manpower cuts. Bernstein focuses on this in his closing paragraphs, stating: “In the absence of police protection, some Americans, such as those living in the CHOP zone in Seattle, were subject to a reign of terror by armed anarchists who destroyed businesses, restricted exit and entry, and used illegal force against residents. Others, either by themselves or in groups, banded together to defend their safety and their businesses via force of arms… “In constitutional law terms,” he concludes, “all this supports the notion that the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense purposes should be extended beyond the home. During this past Summer’s unrest, many Americans have either made the choice to defend themselves, or had that choice forced upon them when attacked with no viable retreat possible. Try telling them that the right to bear arms in self-defense is obsolete thanks to the police.” It's a scenario anti-gun Senators on the Judiciary Committee, and their cheerleaders in the gun prohibition lobby, do not care to see. That is why opposition to Judge Barrett’s confirmation is so visceral. They do not, as expressed by Sen. Blumenthal, want a Justice Barrett helping to swing the pendulum back where it belongs by chipping away at decades of gun control that has, in some cases, turned the right to keep and bear arms, into a government-regulated privilege. About Dave Workman Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor. https://www.ammoland.com/2020/10/antis-alarmed-that-acb-confirmation-could-be-huge-setback-for-gun-safety/#axzz6ai37p2Xh
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.