Friday, April 27, 2007

"The Disarming of America"

Yet again the anti-2nd Amendment bias of the press is showing in full force. Even though the recent Zogby poll (see earlier blog entry) indicates Americans aren't interested in more gun control laws, the press seems convinced that they need to "change America's mind". The most disgusting column I've read recently (apart from the Roanoke Times article advocating the repeal of the 2nd Amendment) is this recent op/ed piece from The Toledo Blade. In this piece, the author states:

"First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty."

There goes the 2nd Amendment right there, but believe it or not, it gets worse:

"The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.

"Clearly, since such sweeps could not take place all across the country at the same time. But fairly quickly there would begin to be gun-swept, gun-free areas where there should be no firearms. If there were, those carrying them would be subject to quick confiscation and prosecution. On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for 'carrying.'"

Call out the Gestapo! Now there goes the 4th Amendment as well.

I honestly couldn't believe such a clearly un-American piece of tripe was actually printed. This editorial reads like a bad dystopian future novel, not a "vision" presented by a legitimate op/ed columnist. Needless to say I wrote a "Letter to the Editor" back to the Toledo Blade, but as I'm out of their circulation market and my letter doesn't fit with their clearly preconceived notions about firearms ownership, I'm sure it will reside in the dustbin. So here's my response to it. I borrowed a couple of points from previous letters, but about 70% of it is new:

"In reading Dan Simpson’s piece “The disarming of America” I could not help but feel as if I had suddenly been transported to another world. A world where the Bill of Rights doesn’t exist, and the natural rights protected therein are meaningless. I am shocked and amazed that an American could write such an ignorant piece and that an American publication would print it.

"Not only does Mr. Simpson’s “plan” violate the 2nd Amendment, but the 4th Amendment as well since he advocates search and seizure without due cause. Remember that The Framers granted no rights in the Bill of Rights, they simply affirmed what they saw as natural rights, hence the Amendments are worded “the government shall not infringe” rather than “The People are granted the right”. The right to bear arms is therefore an extension of the natural right of self-preservation. An armed populace was also viewed the surest check against government tyranny and oppression.

"Mr. Simpson assumes a world without guns is a safer world. However in the real world, responsibility for self-preservation lies with the individual, and can’t be guaranteed by any external body or authority. No police force or military can keep any individual citizen “safe”, their duty is to the collective whole, not the individual. The UK and Australia have enacted very strict gun control, only to see their violent crime rates go up as gun control only assures the law abiding are disarmed.

"Finally, Mr. Simpson’s plan is not entirely original. A nation in Europe enacted gun registration in 1928 and when a new government came to power in 1933 it used those lists to disarm political opponents and minority groups leaving only the ardent supporters of the government armed. That nation was Germany, and the world still recoils at what happened next."

Until next time - I'm still fuming...

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus!

I just discovered a new website via one of my favorite Gun Boards. Go check out Students for Concealed Carry on Campus . It great to see a grass-roots effort to allow holders of a Concealed Carry Permit to exercise their right to self-defense while on University property.

Honestly, I wish we lived in a world where our homes and schools were true sanctuaries where violence could not forcibly enter. Unfortunately that world does not exist, yet far too many people who seem exhibit an almost Pollyannaish naivety seem to believe it does. They believe that they can create “zones” where guns aren’t allowed and people can “feel safe.” That illusion is all too frequently broken by the uncomfortable reality that there are people out there who simply do not respect others rights.

I wish this group all the best, and I’ve added them to my featured links at right!

Until next time!

A Lot of People Don't Get It

Ever since the tragedy last Monday, a lot of news outlets have been feeding the public a steady diet of anti-2nd Amendment stories from Op/Ed pieces to ensuring that reader submitted "Letters to the Editor" support the common theme. Unfortunately my local paper, The Oregonian, seems to want to push the agenda rather than look at the facts and data. I read a particularly representative (and naive) letter to the editor there today:

"As I read the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the only reason given for the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the proviso "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . .."

"Since we have a standing Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, FBI, CIA, state police, county sheriffs, city police, National Guard and the thousands of private contractors the Defense Department has hired to fight the terrorists, pray tell, what need do we have for the Second Amendment except to provide ready weapons for those fellow Americans who kill Americans at the rate of 30,000 a year?


Since I know that The Oregonian isn’t going to print my response – I included it here so it will actually be read.

I note two critical failings in Marvin Friesen’s letter regarding the Second Amendment. First the author erroneously views the Second Amendment as a granted right for stated reason. Even a cursory reading of the debates surrounding the Second Amendment shows that the way the author “reads” the text to be unsupportable.

The Framers granted no rights in the Bill of Rights, they simply affirmed what they saw as natural rights, hence the Amendments are worded “the government shall not infringe” rather than “The People are granted the right”. The right to bear arms represented an extension of the natural right of self-preservation and furthermore an armed populace represented the surest check against a government seeking to militarily impose its will on the populace. The prefatory “militia” clause is therefore not justification of a granted right; in fact the “militia” clause was included at the insistence of Anti-Federalists who feared a standing army (as did most Federalists).

The second critical failing represents a common misinterpretation of the role of civic and military authorities. Responsibility for self-preservation lies with the individual, and can’t be guaranteed by any external body or authority. The role of law enforcement and the military is that of collective safety and common defense – they are not responsible for, nor are they capable of, keeping each individual citizen “safe”. I find it telling that large cities with restrictive gun laws and large police forces have the highest murder rates in the nation.

So to Marvin Friesen I say, the need for the Second Amendment today is the same as it was in the late 1780’s – to preserve our life and liberty.

Until next time!

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

ATF Wants to Scrap Sgt. York's Captured Machine Gun

For those of you who don’t know, Sergeant Alvin York was an American infantryman who served with distinction during World War I. He received the Medal of Honor for leading an assault on a German machine gun emplacement. Sergeant York’s citation states:

"The Argonne Forest, France, 8 October 1918. After his platoon suffered heavy casualties, Alvin York assumed command. Fearlessly leading 7 men, he charged with great daring a machine gun nest which was pouring deadly and incessant fire upon his platoon. In this heroic feat the machine gun nest was taken, together with 4 German officers and 128 men and several guns."

One of the machine guns captured by York that day found its way to the small town of Nahant, Massachusetts where it was recently discovered in the local library’s attic. According to a recent article in The Boston Globe:

“Library officials say they researched markings on the gun and searched local newspaper archives and town documents for answers about the weapon's origin, determining that the gun had been given to the town in 1918 by an Army clerk, Nahant native Mayland Lewis.

“According to the research, Lewis had plucked the weapon from a pile given up by surrendering Germans and shipped it home. Briefly prized as a souvenir of the war, it was paraded through the town on Armistice Day in 1919 by Boy Scouts who towed it in a red wagon. But over the years it faded from public view.”

Imagine a world where the Boy Scouts are allowed to parade a fully functional machine gun in a red wagon! America has changed so much, and in this particular area I’m not convinced it’s for the better. The article is unclear on how they made the connection between the weapon and Sergeant York, but it is clear that a relic of World War I is in clear danger of being destroyed as the weapon was never registered:

“Library officials soon learned that the gun is illegal and that they can do very little with it.

“Federal gun laws prohibit possession or sale of automatic guns unless they are registered with the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. In the library attic for years, the German machine gun was never registered. The library isn't allowed to register the gun now because federal law prohibits new registrations on automatic weapons, except in rare circumstances.”

I’d love to know what those “rare circumstances” are and why a World War I relic wouldn’t qualify as the ATF seems to “interpret” it as “no circumstances.” Right now the weapon has been transferred to local law enforcement to prevent confiscation by the ATF. The library has contacted their Senators, but as their Senators are Kerry and Kennedy, they haven’t received a response.

This is an important piece of American history, yet the ATF seems to care more about their own bureaucracy and power plays than truly serving the best interests of the American people. Destroying a priceless historical artifact will not keep America’s streets safer, nor does it meet the spirit of the 1986 law (which is another topic entirely!). I’m planning on writing some representatives on this one – it probably won’t help, but I believe that it’s always worse to sit by and do nothing.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Official Numbers In - Stricter Gun Control NOT the Answer

As I reported yesterday, there was anecdotal evidence that despite the loud and frequent cries for additional gun control in the wake of the horrific events at Virginia Tech on many of the media outlets, the idea that greater gun control was needed didn’t seem to be playing well to America at large. I based this off of the largely non-scientific internet polls that had universally been against additional gun control legislation. Today sees the release of the official MSNBC-Zogby poll taken April 17-8 on MSNBC.

The poll itself asks two questions. The first question was:

"Would stricter gun control help prevent tragedies?"

59% NO
36% Yes
5% Not sure

Bearing in mind that the pro-gun control side generally gets a temporary bump after a tragedy like the one seen on Monday, these numbers bode very poorly for individuals wanting to push a stricter gun control agenda. It is also good news for pro-2nd Amendment organizations like the NRA and GOA that the message and facts are getting out and resonating with the general population.

The poll asked a second question:

"Would more people carrying guns help prevent tragedies?"

54% No
38% Yes
8% Not sure

The results here aren’t as good for the pro-2nd Amendment, but I honestly think Question 1 is more important than Question 2 at this point. Unfortunately the benefits of concealed carry are just now becoming apparent, and it looks like a lot of work still remains to get that message to the people.

The article goes on to break down the results by demographic – but the majority view in every demographic is that stricter gun control isn’t the answer. Expect to hear the presidential candidates start weighing in on this issue in the upcoming days.

Until next time!

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Cold Reception for Proposed New Gun Bans

In the wake of Monday’s terrible events at Virginia Tech, all of the usual media outlets have been running pieces on gun control. Some of them seem to be floating the idea, like this article at MSNBC , but even while that article seems to advocate gun control it acknowledges that gun control has been a losing issue since 1994. Some of the media outlets have been posting editorials that have been downright acerbic as I discussed in yesterday’s blog entry. Many op/ed pages seem, such as the Oregonian, seem to be posting exclusively anti-gun views on their op-ed pieces, and I KNOW for a fact that they have received other opinions – I sent one in yesterday.

However, if you look deeper, most of the major media outlets (ABC, MSNBC, CNN) are also posting their infamous web polls on this topic. Now, I know that these polls are unscientific and self-motivated, but I do find it interesting that without exception every poll seems to indicate that there is NOT a desire for more gun control – many by substantial margins. For example, this poll at MSNBC asked

“The massacre at Virginia Tech is raising new questions about gun control. Do gun control laws need to be made tougher?”

The responses (both of which are push poll responses – which is at least semi-honest) are:

Yes. Unthinkable violence like this could be prevented by tougher gun control.


No. And if more people were allowed to carry concealed weapons, fewer people might have died.

When I last checked the poll a whopping 73% of the respondents answered NO!!!

Apparently some media outlets are picking up on the notion that concealed carry might have helped this situation. After printing an extremely anti-gun editorial this weekend where the author called for the repeal of the Second Amendment, The Roanoke Times published a far more cogent article by an actual Virginia Tech graduate student. The student holds a valid Virgina Concealed Carry Permit, and writes:

“Of all of the emotions and thoughts that were running through my head that morning, the most overwhelming one was of helplessness.

“That feeling of helplessness has been difficult to reconcile because I knew I would have been safer with a proper means to defend myself.

I would also like to point out that when I mentioned to a professor that I would feel safer with my gun, this is what she said to me, ‘I would feel safer if you had your gun.’”

The author goes on:

“I am qualified and capable of carrying a concealed handgun and urge you to work with me to allow my most basic right of self-defense, and eliminate my entrusting my safety and the safety of my classmates to the government.

“This incident makes it clear that it is time that Virginia Tech and the commonwealth of Virginia let me take responsibility for my safety.”

Virginia Tech students aren’t the only individuals making similar observations. David B. Kopel wrote an editorial for the Wall Street Journal making many similar observations. Mr. Kopel cited cases in Utah where a “gun free zone” could have turned into a similar killing field, but didn’t because an off duty police officer ignored the restriction. Kopel also cites the bill last year that would have allowed holders of CCW permits to carry on campus:

“Last year the Virginia legislature defeated a bill that would have ended the ‘gun-free zones’ in Virginia's public universities. At the time, a Virginia Tech associate vice president praised the General Assembly's action ‘because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.’ In an August 2006 editorial for the Roanoke Times, he declared: ‘Guns don't belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same.’"

Isn’t it amazing that every gun ban proposed from Dianne Feinstein on down is there to ensure people “feel safe”. That feeling of safety is a dangerous fiction, and we can ill afford putting more innocents in peril so the ignorant and naive can “feel safe”.

Until next time.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Tragedy at Virginia Tech and the Knee-Jerk Political Response

First and foremost my heart goes out to the victims, the families, the students, and the faculty of Virginia Tech University. The actions of one deranged individual have ended, impacted, and interrupted countless lives in the worst possible way. All of you are in my thoughts and my prayers, and I offer you my most sincere condolences. I pray you are able to find solace as you work through this unimaginable tragedy.

Unfortunately, in this tragedy the political opportunists and vultures have seen an opening to spread ignorance and prey on people’s fear. Before the shooter’s identity was even known, before the source of the weapons was known, before any meaningful data was released, and before most of the victims had even been IDENTIFIED – those who “know what’s good for you” already had the solution – more gun control.

Michael Daly of the NY Daily News wrote a particularly ignorant hateful piece with the normal line of “blame the tool, not the person.” Most of the responses to this editorial have been decidedly negative. The Washington Post seems to feel obligated to pass along the standard pack of misconceptions published by foreign press, including this ludicrous statement:

"’I think the reason it happens in America is there's access to weapons -- you can go into a supermarket and get powerful automatic weapons,’ Keith Ashcroft, a psychologist, told the Press Association. Ashcroft said he believed such access, along with a culture that makes gun ownership seem normal, increases the likelihood of such attacks in the United States.”

I don’t know of a single supermarket in the United States where you can pick up an automatic weapon. Period. Automatic weapons are rare, expensive, and strictly regulated by the BATFE. But apparently the facts matter even less to the Foreign press than they do to the American press.

To anyone who believes that more gun control would have prevented this tragedy, I’ve got news for you – it wouldn’t have helped. In fact, I strongly believe that it was the GUN BAN THAT CAUSED THE HIGH DEATH COUNT! That’s right ladies and gentlemen, I FIRMLY believe that the fact that firearms were not allowed on the Virginia Tech campus – because it was a “gun free zone” – no one had the opportunity to defend themselves from this sort of violence.

In 2006, a bill was proposed in the Virginia Legislature that would have allowed individuals with state issued Concealed Carry permits to carry on college campuses. This bill was defeated and the Virginia Tech Administration praised the defeat of the legislation:

“VA Tech spokesman Larry Hincker [celebrated] the defeat of the bill. ‘I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions,’ Hincker said on Jan. 31, 2006, ‘because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.’”

There’s a world of difference between “feeling safe” and actually being safe. The article above cites several examples of shootings that could have turned into rampages that would rival the tragedy at Virginia Tech, but were stopped by the intervention of one law-abiding individual with a firearm. We’ll unfortunately never know how many innocent lives could have been saved had Virginia House Bill 1572 passed, but we now know the cost of a “gun free zone” – over 30 innocent lives wasted.

Monday, April 16, 2007

Editorial Calls for Repeal of Second Amendment

File this under I don’t know whether I should laugh or cry. A recent editorial by Tommy Denton over at The Roanoke Times represents a new form of attack on the Second Amendment. For the past 70 years or so, the focus has been on passing as many “common sense” gun bans as possible. Recent court decisions have, however, re-affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is, and was always meant to be, an individual right. Because the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, gun bans suddenly find themselves on very thin ice as the legal obfuscation used to imply anything to the opposite has been dispelled.

The article starts with the normal “plea to emotion”:

“No matter how much mayhem and tragedy may be caused by gun violence in the United States, such costs are more than an acceptable trade-off for many people who are determined to preserve ‘the right to keep and bear arms.’"

The truth is, far fewer people are killed by firearms than are killed in motor vehicle accidents every year. I don’t see these same individuals decrying the “mayhem and tragedy” caused by vehicular traffic, even WITH the government certifying and licensing both cars and drivers. I don’t see them proposing an “assault car ban” or proposing a prohibitive tax on automobiles that would raise the price of an entry-level sub-compact from $10,000 to $80,000.

The author does get one thing right:

“Alas, those who believe that their gun-embracing compatriots pose a clear and present public danger by misinterpreting the true meaning of the Second Amendment will be disappointed to learn that some of the ablest legal minds in the land disagree with them.

“Even generally liberal law professors such as Harvard's Laurence Tribe and Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas offer no ideological or historical comfort to those who read into the Second Amendment the restriction that guns may be justified only under state-sponsored militia and not under a general liberty bestowed as an individual right.”

The author does, unlike the Brady Campaign, recognize that the Second Amendment does, and was intended to secure and affirm an individual right. However, the remedy the author suggests is what is draconian and dangerous:

“The Founders wrote what they wrote, but they wrote for a century and a nation for which the Second Amendment no longer is appropriate. Yet we should adhere faithfully to the letter and spirit of the Constitution: Quixotic as it may be right now, I propose that we begin thinking about invoking the Constitution's Article V and repeal the Second Amendment.”

That’s right ladies and gentlemen, the call to REPEAL the Second Amendment has began. The Bill of Rights, which Madison, Hamilton and the other founders indicated was unnecessary because the government was given no power to regulate what they viewed as “inalienable rights” is now under attack by those who seem to believe if one repeals the Amendment, one destroys the Right. What next, Mr. Denton, do we repeal the First Amendment and set up a State Religion? Do we repeal the Fourth Amendment and seize all private property? Do we repeal the Fifth Amendment and create kangaroo courts with summary convictions and executions for anyone the government finds distasteful? It seems like he’s already started down a very slippery slope (we may even be skiing down it!), a slope that leads only to the destruction of the system of “free, fair elections and politically accountable representation” that we all value so highly.

Make sure you write the editor on this one.

Until next time!

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

20/20 Wants Your Self-Defense Stories

The ABC news magazine 20/20 has put out a call for people’s self-defense stories. These aren’t just any self-defense stories, these are self-defense stories involving a firearm. From their site:

"Have you ever defended yourself from a crime in your home, in your business, or in public by using a gun? Perhaps you warded off a potential attacker by simply showing a gun?"

From the rest of the text of the call for input, it’s clear that they want to do a piece on concealed carry:

"40 states now allow their citizens to obtain conceal-carry permits for handguns. Some people say that's dangerous, while others say it allows them to protect themselves."

Hopefully this will be a piece that really tries to look at the facts and statistics behind concealed carry and not some thinly veiled attack on people with CCW’s or an attempt to “teach the controversy” in the absence of data. Apparently the NRA shares this concern as they’re asking members to copy them on stories submitted to ABC.

If the producers of 20/20 do their research, they’re going to discover that there are a lot of myths perpetuated by those opposed to the individual right to carry. Gun Facts has a great section that demonstrates that concealed carry laws decrease crime, that concealed carry permit holders are far less likely to be involved in crime, etc. The numbers presented there are amazing and clear cut. I really hope to see a lot of this information come out in the story.

There have been a lot of stories in the news demonizing gun owners as kooks and dangerous. This represents an opportunity to change that perception. I will be anxiously watching for the show when it airs and will provide a critique at that time.

Until next time!

Friday, April 6, 2007

Knowledge is Power

The arts of logic, debate and rhetoric go back thousands of years and were, in fact, the core of the education system in the classical world. The art of rhetoric is generally understood as the technique of persuasion, such as an individual giving a speech. The art of logic deals with the structure of statements and arguments, and forms the basis of modern debate. While these arts are ancient, they have a staggering impact on society today as they are the primary tools to attack and defend the Second Amendment.

One key to winning any debate is knowledge. If you can demonstrate that your opponent’s argument has a fatal flaw, or is based on poor or erroneous data, then you will have made progress toward discrediting your opponent’s view. However, modern political dialogue doesn’t rest on logic and debate alone – there is an emotional component. An accomplished speaker can still win an argument or debate through skillful use of words and ideas that don’t rely on data.

Like most well-funded and large political action organizations, the Brady Campaign attempts to use a combination of rhetoric and logic to support their views on gun control. I say “attempts to use” because while they do a fine job preying on people’s fear and ignorance through rhetoric, I’ve found that their logical arguments are almost universally based on bad data or tenuous interpretations of law and statistics. Unfortunately, the sheer volume of the bad data they use is not easy to correct in a seven second sound-bite or even a lengthy blog post.

I have, however, found a site that makes any supporter of the 2nd Amendment’s job easier! Check out Bradybusters. Perhaps the most valuable part of this site is the “Documents” section. Which includes the 2004 report by the Attorney General on the 2nd Amendment, various gun FAQ’s, and Guy Smith’s "Gun Facts". Quite simply this site is an amazing resource for anyone wanting facts and figures to counter the arguments of gun control advocates everywhere.

In the long run, I like to believe that best data will win out over a blind emotional plea. In that scenario, knowledge is truly power. The Bradybusters site does an exemplary job of providing any supporter of the Bill of Rights the knowledge needed to combat the ignorance so prevalent in America today.

Until next time!

Tuesday, April 3, 2007

Zumbo Strikes Back

Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock, you’ll remember Jim Zumbo’s blog entry where he referred to the mislabeled “assault weapons” as “terrorist rifles.” That entry ticked off quite a large portion of the firearm owning community, and ultimately led to Jim losing sponsorships and his job at Outdoor Life.

Even though Jim Zumbo posted retractions and apologies both on Outdoor Life’s site and Ted Nugent’s forum, as expected it didn’t take long for the anti-Bill of Rights crowd to start quoting Jim’s blog and painting him as a martyr standing up against the unwashed hordes of people who think it’s acceptable to own a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine. Senator Carl Levin raised Jim’s blog during his regularly scheduled tirade against the evils of firearms stating:

“Jim has been an NRA member for 40 years, and, according to his Web site, has appeared with NRA officials in 70 cities across the country. This relationship changed drastically when Jim expressed his commonsense opinion on assault weapons.”


“The reaction from NRA officials was swift and callous. They immediately severed all ties with Mr. Zumbo . His TV program on the Outdoor Channel was canceled, and his longtime career with Outdoor Life magazine ended. In addition, many of his corporate ties to the biggest names in gun making, such as Remington Arms Co., were terminated.”


“We all owe Jim Zumbo a debt of gratitude for his forthrightness, his honesty and his courage. We must put the safety of our communities first by taking up and passing sensible gun legislation that includes renewing the assault weapons ban.”

Apparently Senator Levin didn’t get the memo that the NRA was silent on this issue until the following week, and that the Remington and other contracts were terminated by the companies in question before the NRA uttered syllable one. It also appears that Senator Levin didn’t get the memo that Jim Zumbo admitted that he screwed up big time and retracted the column.

After hearing of Levin’s tirade, Jim Zumbo did not remain silent. To his credit he wrote a scathing rebuttal of Levin in an open letter to the Senate. The letter is well-written and unambiguous. Some high points:

“Some of us learn from our mistakes, others keep making them. Legislation to which Sen. Levin alluded, HR 1022, would renew the ban on so-called “assault weapons,” and dangerously expand it to encompass far more perfectly legal firearms. For the Congress of the United States to even consider such legislation is an affront to every law-abiding firearms owner in this country.

“This legislation that Sen. Levin appears to endorse is written so broadly as outlaw not only firearms, but accessories, including a folding stock for a Ruger rifle. As I understand the language of this bill, it could ultimately take away my timeworn and cherished hunting rifles and shotguns – firearms I hope to one day pass on to my grandchildren – as well as millions of identical and similar firearms owned by other American citizens.

“It is clear to me that the supporters of this legislation don’t want to stop criminals. They want to invent new ones out of people like me, and many of you, and your constituents, friends, neighbors and members of your families. They will do anything they can, go to any extremes they believe necessary, to make it impossible for more and more American citizens to legally own any firearm.

“I will not allow my name to be associated with this kind of attack on the Second Amendment rights of my fellow citizens.”

Finally Jim Zumbo seems to get it. Unfortunately I think he is now all too acutely aware of the power of speech, and the law of unintended consequences. I think all freedom loving individuals everywhere need to bear this example in mind and take a moment to think before speaking or putting pen to paper (or pixel to monitor in this particular case).

Until Next time!