The President says he believes in the Second Amendment, which one supposes is gracious of him, but in his op-ed he also snidely refers to the beliefs of those who are concerned with Second Amendment liberty as being engaged in “wedge issues and stale political debates.”

The crimes on January 8 were the killing of six people and the wounding of 13 others. The response should not be — as is usually the case with gun restrictions — for the federal government to target law-abiding Americans.

William P. Hoar
April 5, 2011
Gun Controllers Don’t Want to Waste Tucson Tragedy
[I would like to also point out that if the President really thinks the Second Amendment is a “stale political debate” then he can stop bringing up gun control and tell the Brady Campaign and their ilk he is not interested in talking to them.—Joe]

When Solicitor General Theodore Olson filed briefs in the Supreme Court embracing the expansive individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, we warned that the primary beneficiaries of the Ashcroft Justice Department’s novel interpretation would be criminal defendants. An expansive individual right under the Second Amendment simply is not supported by history of the Constitution or binding Supreme Court precedent and threatens to undermine the Justice Department’s enforcement of existing gun laws.

“Now, the chickens have come home to roost. As the Washington Post today reported, the defendants are charged in separate cases with unlawful possession of a handgun and ammunition respectively. They both rely explicitly on the Justice Department’s briefs “and a memorandum from Attorney General Ashcroft to all 93 U.S. Attorneys in which he directs them to follow his interpretation of the Second Amendment” to support their Second Amendment challenges to the District’s gun laws. According to the brief in one of the cases: “As made clear by the various government representations, the United States now understands and represents before tribunals that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual and personal right, not a collective right of the state to form a militia.’ On this basis, the defendants seek to have the District’s laws, which impose a virtual ban on the private possession of handguns and ammunition, struck down.

Mathew Nosanchuk
Violence Policy Center’s litigation director and legislative counsel
May 30, 2002
Statement of Violence Policy Center in Response to D.C. Gun Crime Defendants Using U.S. Department of Justice Second Amendment Policy Shift to Strike Down Gun Laws
[I’m sure there were similar complaints when challenges were made against whites only drinking fountains and restrooms, and prohibitions against mix race marriages.

Undermining existing unconstitutional and discriminatory laws are a good thing.

That the VPC put itself on a parallel track headed into the same dustbin in history, nearly nine years ago, as the KKK is icing on the cake.—Joe]

Carry laws are in place in every state except Wisconsin and Illinois. To this day no evidence can be brought forth demonstrating these laws have lead to an increase in violent crime but much evidence exists demonstrating these laws correlate with a lowering in violent crime. Yet the Brady Campaign continues to warn about the “blood in the streets” that’s inevitable when carry laws are passed. Why are these people still clinging to their failed belief that guns are the problem? Because not doing so will cause them to lose their Joyce Foundation funding and then they would have to go find real jobs.

…

The bottom line is carry permits have been nothing but beneficial. There hasn’t been a single valid argument made against passing liberalized (in the classical sense of the word) carry laws. So far no “blood in the streets” instance have occurred and frankly the laws have been on the books in some states for decades. You would think the anti-gunners would wake up and realize nothing they’ve said has come true and thus their argument has no weight. Then again for most anti-gunners their argument is emotional and logic can go take a flying fuck and a rolling doughnut.

Christopher Burg
March 31, 2011
Brady Campaign Whining About Illinois Possibly Lifting Their Carry Ban
[Yup!—Joe]

We must, once again, confine military firepower to the battlefield, by reinstating a ban on high-capacity ammo clips.  Why hasn’t such legislation long ago been enacted?

Usually such a question prompts a discussion of the NRA’s outsized political power – its resources, its tactics of threats and intimidation, and the commitment of its cadre of true believers.  Indeed, in recent years, the gun control issue has become so dominated by the question of whether stronger gun laws can be enacted, that it has left little room to address the real issue – whether stronger gun laws should be enacted.

Dennis Henigan
Brady Center Vice President
March 29, 2011
Jim and Sarah Brady: Beyond Politics to Idealism
[To answer the first question, because it is pointless. I have demonstrated that with my video. Furthermore the U.S. Department of Justice sponsored study said, “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

What is he implying with the statement “outsized political power”? Does this mean he thinks there should be some regulation of political power in this country? Perhaps when blacks/Jews/homosexuals get a little too uppity they should be silenced or at least put in their place. Or is it just those people that exercise their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms that should be put down when their numbers get a little too big for the politicians to ignore?

As to whether stronger gun laws should be enacted. I think that discussion was settled with the Heller and McDonald U.S. Supreme Court decisions. But like the KKK that didn’t really accept the results of the Civil War and the freeing of the slaves Henigan and Brady Campaign can’t seem to get past the fact that they lost.—Joe]

One thing he definitely got wrong, however, was his arrogant statement that he “expanded” the rights of gun owners. The Bill of Rights is guaranteed and can’t be “expanded” by government, as it contains fundamental natural rights. Those rights can, however, be restricted by illegitimate government fiat, which is why the clear language of the Second Amendment prohibits even “infringement” upon it. But infringement is clearly on the agenda despite Obama’s rhetorical vacillations.

Chuck Norris
March 28, 2011
Obama triangulates on gun control
[Although I agree with the point that fundamental natural rights can’t be “expanded” it’s generally not a good idea to “look a gift horse in the mouth”. The time to use the point about rights cannot be expanded, only infringed, is during debates with those wishing to continue restricting our rights. I think this meme can be used to great effect in many circumstances. I think it is an important mindset shift that we need to adopt now that we are on the offensive. But I don’t think it is appropriate in this context.

We won minor victories on the guns on trains and in National Parks issues under the Obama administration. To the best of my knowledge they didn’t even put up a fight. For this President Obama deserves some cautious praise and perhaps a gentle, private, reminder on the nature of rights, not a public slap in the face.—Joe]

As a former peace marcher, head shop owner, member of the Brady Campaign, and gun store protester, I see no reason why we shouldn’t have constitutional carry in all 50 states, eliminate the National Firearms Act, Gun Control Act, and Brady Bill, overrule all state gun laws as violations of the 2nd Amendment, and make Samuel Colt’s birthday a national holiday.

Ken
March 25, 2011
Comment to You know the whole “I’m a gun owner BUT” thing?
[Nice mockery!

I love it.—Joe]

Everyone needs moral support when they’re lying their faces off.

RB
March 22, 2011
Media Matters Pundit Boot Camp
[I think this explain why the anti-gun people, such as Joan Peterson, get so bent out of shape and whine about everyone being mean to them when we bring facts to the discussion. They need a lot of moral support in order to maintain their belief system.

I’m sure I got the link from some other blog but I can’t find it right now. Sorry for not giving credit where it’s due.—Joe]

Friends, as a Jew, I have a deeply ingrained distrust of any government that promises it will “protect me.” The history of the Twentieth Century teaches us that “gun control” registration schemes lead to political decisions to allow some populations to protect themselves while others are disarmed. Gun control is inexorably tied to malevolent citizen disarmament. See: “INNOCENTS BETRAYED“

Rabbi Dovid Bendory
Rabbinic Director
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
JPFO Launches “High Cap Freedom”
[Via Musing of a Vast Right-Winger.

Innocents Betrayed has some very powerful content. But then so did the Twentieth Century. I just find it sad and frustrating that so much of the world insists on relearning those lessons.—Joe]

We’ve lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means. Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it’s an individual right.

Paul Helmke
June 12, 2008
Brady Campaign President
Gun Control Group Braces for Court Loss
[And 100% of the U.S. Supreme Court thinks that as well.

Nice try guys. You came close.

In an alternate history with the Internet lagging just a little bit the bad guys would have won and the 21st Century could have been a dystopia.

Now we get to condemn them to the dustbin of history like the Berlin Wall, the U.S. Confederacy, and the KKK.—Joe]