"The framers of the Constitution didn't write the Second Amendment to facilitate hunting. They wrote it so that ordinary Americans could protect themselves from a variety of threats, including would-be totalitarians. And the notion that a magazine capacity of ten bullets or less will keep people safer, while one that holds eleven or more leads directly to a Newtown and therefore must be eliminated, smacks of the 'do something' mentality to which politicians resort when they have nothing of substance to offer. Genuine substance reveals that there are times when ordinary citizens are faced with threats, such as multiple intruders into one's home, or an encounter with a street gang, where a magazine with more than ten bullets may be the difference between life and death." --Arnold Ahlert
"This isn't about preventing another Sandy Hook for the left. It is about political posturing. If the left really wanted to be true to its own philosophy, it would simply attempt to repeal the Second Amendment and go for a total British-style gun ban. The vast majority of murders committed with guns in the United States are committed with handguns. Yet the left insists that it wants to leave private handgun ownership in place, while targeting so-called 'assault rifles.' That's not an attempt at a solution, even from the left. It's just preening for the cameras while pointing to the bodies of shooting victims." --Ben Shapiro
"One of my readers suggested that if Democrats were really sincere, they would make Washington, D.C., a gun-free zone, just like schools, malls, movie theaters and Fort Hood. After all, if empty words are enough to keep our kids safe, why aren't they good enough for members of Congress, Joe Biden and Barack Obama? If the government passes anti-gun laws, we all know it will do nothing to eliminate mass murders. That means the natural next step will be to expand their attack on the Second Amendment by outlawing ammo. I even know what their slogan will be: 'Guns Don't Kill People, Bullets Do.'" --Burt Prelutsky
"My friend Mark Alexander, publisher of PatriotPost.US ... threw down the gauntlet by stating in terms reminiscent of those uttered so often by our Founding Fathers: 'In keeping with the oath I have taken in the service of my country, I will "support and defend" Liberty as "endowed by our Creator" and enshrined in our Constitution, "against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Accordingly, I will not comply with any defensive weapons ban instituted by executive order, legislative action or judicial dictate, which violates the innate human right to defend self and Liberty, as empowered by "the right of the People to keep and bear arms."' That's the way Americans used to speak, as those of us who grew up reading American history books recall, before the PC crowd revamped textbooks so that they demeaned the likes of Jefferson, Adams and Patrick Henry. I believe that there are enough patriots in this country who stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Mr. Alexander to prevent this administration from confiscating constitutionally-protected weapons." --Burt Prelutsky
"The loss of liberty always begins at the extremes, but it won't stop there. Radicals won't be satisfied with outlawing one type of gun. ... The Second Amendment was written to protect citizens from tyrannical government and to preserve our liberties. It's not primarily for the protection of hunters and target shooters, though they are included. Those politicians who wish to ignore the Constitution are the ones who need to be controlled, not law-abiding gun owners." --Cal Thomas
"[H]ere are a few questions to gun control proponents designed to stimulate a discussion of the actual subject rather than triggering reason-inhibiting emotional responses. ... Why shouldn't Second Amendment advocates be suspicious? Why do you propose measures that will do nothing to prevent Sandy Hook-type massacres but will impede the ability of innocent private citizens to defend themselves against criminal assailants? Why aren't you sympathetic to the rights of ordinary citizens, whose home security is demonstrably enhanced by their right to own semiautomatic weapons? ... Why do you mock the constitutional right of citizens to bear arms not just for self-defense, which the Supreme Court affirmed in recent years, but as a fallback defense against a tyrannical government? ... Why does the liberal mind always make a mad dash toward a federal government solution every time there's a problem or tragedy in society?" --David Limbaugh
"Second Amendment supporters historically have opposed gun registration, fearing that it could ultimately lead to confiscation, something that has actually happened in places such as Canada, Great Britain, Australia, California and New York City. While wholesale disarmament would be clearly unconstitutional in this country, confiscation of guns that legislators arbitrarily deem unnecessary or excessively dangerous is easier to imagine, especially given Obama's support for a new, stricter ban on 'assault weapons.' Perhaps fear of confiscation seems paranoid to you. But consider what would happen if the federal government merely enforced existing law through expanded background checks and improved records -- another step nearly everyone seems to think is self-evidently sensible. Such a crackdown would reveal the folly of current restrictions, which prohibit gun ownership by several absurdly broad categories of people under the threat of a five-year prison term. ... One of Obama's 'common-sense steps' to reduce gun violence is better sharing of data by federal agencies, including lists of employees or job applicants who have failed drug tests. Seeking such information from state agencies and private employers seems equally logical. This is one of those situations where 'better' could be worse. Although better enforcement of existing restrictions on gun ownership sounds unobjectionable, it would unjustly deny millions of people the right to armed self-defense." --Jacob Sullum
"Apart from the Second Amendment, how many other amendments to the Constitution will have been violated by denying someone the right to purchase a firearm because he is predicted to use the gun illegally -- based on a psych test. So what can be done? We can harden the target to make it more likely that the shooter will encounter resistance. We can re-examine the soundness of 'gun-free' zones like schools and malls. By law and policy, these are places where bad guys know there are no guns. ... Americans, according to criminologist Gary Kleck, use guns 2.5 million times each year for self-defense, usually just brandishing the weapon. (The attacker is wounded in less than 8 percent of self-defense cases.) Of the 2.5 million, 400,000 claim that but for their gun they would have been dead. If we're serious about 'doing something,' we might consider shifting the odds in favor of the good guys." --Larry Elder
"'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' ... I don't believe that the 27 words above -- the Second Amendment of our Constitution -- have anything to do with 'gun rights.' Guns don't have rights. I do. So do you. Fifty-two years ago, like tens of millions before and since, I raised my right hand and took an oath of enlistment in our armed forces, pledging to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.' I promised I would 'bear true faith and allegiance to the same.' Notably, the words promise loyalty not to a political party or a particular individual but to the Constitution, which enshrines our liberties and the limits and responsibilities of those who govern us like no other foundational document on earth. ... [The] words -- 'executive orders, executive action' -- used in conjunction with constitutionally protected rights and liberties, ought to alarm us all. They used to frighten Barack Obama. On Oct. 2, 2007, then-Sen. Obama railed against what he called the abuse of executive powers perpetrated by President George W. Bush in his administration's efforts to protect the American people from acts of terror by radical Islamists. Apparently, the current occupant of the Oval Office has overcome his early concerns about chief executives exceeding their authority." --Oliver North
"President Barack Obama set a new standard ... for stupidly exploitative White House events by appearing onstage with children to unveil his gun control proposals. ... News flash: Kids don't want bad things to happen. This would be a genuinely useful insight ... if we could write public policy in crayon. The White House event smacked of the old unilateral disarmament campaigns of the 1980s when we were supposed to get rid of our nuclear weapons because they scared youngsters. We can safely assume that the kids onstage with Obama don't have a fine-grained sense of the limits of gun control or a proper regard for the Second Amendment. That's OK, though -- neither does he." --Rich Lowry
"The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available. If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive. ... Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun control laws, on both sides of the Atlantic, have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals. In Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons in Britain are not put behind bars. ... Guns are not the problem. People are the problem -- including people who are determined to push gun control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts." --Thomas Sowell
"If you don't want to have a gun in your home or in your school, that's your choice. But don't be such a damn fool as to advertise to the whole world that you are in 'a gun-free environment' where you are a helpless target for any homicidal fiend who is armed. Is it worth a human life to be a politically correct moral exhibitionist?" --Thomas Sowell
"The central question as to whether gun control laws save lives or cost lives has generated many factual studies over the years. But these studies have been like the proverbial tree that falls in an empty forest, and has been heard by no one -- certainly not by zealots who have made up their minds and don't want to be confused by the facts. Most factual studies show no reduction in gun crimes, including murder, under gun control laws. A significant number of studies show higher rates of murder and other gun crimes under gun control laws." --Thomas Sowell
"There have been people who've ridiculed the protections afforded by the Second Amendment, asking what chance would citizens have against the military might of the U.S. government. Military might isn't always the deciding factor. Our 1776 War of Independence was against the mightiest nation on the face of the earth -- Great Britain. In Syria, the rebels are making life uncomfortable for the much-better-equipped Syrian regime. Today's Americans are vastly better-armed than our founders, Warsaw Ghetto Jews and Syrian rebels. There are about 300 million privately held firearms owned by Americans. That's nothing to sneeze at. And notice that the people who support gun control are the very people who want to control and dictate our lives." --Walter E. Williams
"Many of today's youngsters begin the school day passing through metal detectors. Guards patrol school hallways, and police cars patrol outside. Despite these measures, assaults, knifings and shootings occur. ... For well over a half-century, the nation's liberals and progressives ... have waged war on traditions, customs and moral values. These people taught their vision, that there are no moral absolutes, to our young people. To them, what's moral or immoral is a matter of convenience, personal opinion or a consensus. ... Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society. ... The importance of customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society." --Walter E. Williams
By: Stanislav Mishin, Pravda
These days, there are few few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bare arms and use deadly force to defend one's self and possessions.
This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.
Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.
This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington's clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.
Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lieing guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.
Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers.
To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere....but criminals are still armed and still murdering and to often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined.
While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.
For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or "talking to them", it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.
The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?
No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.
So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.