British Doctors Call For a Ban on Kitchen Knives, To Reduce Stabbings This is the same attitude that looks to gun control in an effort to curb violence. They banned guns and out didn’t work, now knives. What’s next, banning cricket bats? People, please let your voice be heard. Contact your congressmen and litter then know your stance on guns and the 2nd Amendment.


Are Pro-2A’ers On the Same Level as Sex Offenders

Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned has the story of Gannett publishing a list of every Firearm Permit Holder in NY State. This is an egregious violation of our rights. While their local print isn’t doing this, I would love to see any media outlet they own boycotted. They do publish both The Greenville News and Link Magazine in my local market. I know that the Greenville News was already hurting due to the paywall they implemented several years ago.

Here is all of their outlets listed at Wikipedia.

Your Priority in the New Year?

We know what the POTUS’s is. He has vowed to make sure that gun control is strengthened during “the first year” of his term. Feinstein stated that new legislation will “strengthen the 1994 ban.” Please contact your Congressmen and tell them that the 2nd Amendment is a priority for you and your vote.

You can find out how to contact your Congressmen HERE:

Here is a sample letter to send:

n the wake of the Newtown, CT tragedy and prior recent events, I have taken notice to the new legislation Senator Diane Feinstein will introduce to Congress on January 3rd 2013. Senator Feinstein is not going in the right direction by introducing a bill that pertains to ban “Assault Weapons” and other semi-automatics. This would infringe on our right given by the Constitution to bear arms and maintain as the People’s militia. The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 did not satisfy it’s intent with banning “Assault Weapons”. This was proven ineffectively to curb gun violence and was irrelevant. In fact, fatal shootings actually increased through this time period. Columbine High School massacre was an unfortunate example for this. Through much thought and reasoning I have these points:
-Real “Assault Weapons” are already banned in the United States under the National Firearms Act of 1934. As a Military member, I have used both my own AR-15 and the M4 Carbine on duty/training and I am aware of the differences. The military features are covered under the National Firearms Act and are outlawed for civilian use.
-The media claims the .223 cartridge is too powerful but many are not educated on the difference between cartridges used in shoulder fire rifles. Such an example and comparison would place the .223 cartridge well below common rounds used for everyday in all hunting rifles such as the .308 Winchester or a .300 Weatherby. The .223 Remington/5.56mm is more effective in stopping a varmint animal than what hunters use to kill deer for sport such as a .30 caliber round.
-The Armalite style weapons used in the civilian markets are just look-alikes. My question is: how do features such as a collapsible stock, detachable magazine, and a threaded barrel determine if the weapon is a “Deadly Weapon”? The modern AR-15 is configured no different than any other hunting rifle and giving it a collapsible stock, detached magazine doesn’t make it more “deadlier” than any other weapon that fires a bullet. It’s not the weapon that delivers effectiveness, but the employer of that weapon. We must be reasonable here and not use our bias to determine this.
I urge you along with many other law-abiding citizens to vote against any bill that would ban these “Assault Weapons” Senator Feinstein presents. We must not forget the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in part of “the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed”. Thomas Jefferson intended the militia to be the People as we consent to the governed. The problem with these violent acts is not guns, but the problem lies with morality, the treatment of mentally ill people, and the lack of protection for our children in schools. I remember growing up in the Jacksonville, NC area and having the school resource officer on campus. I believe it was very successful to curb violence in schools. The measure Senator Feinstein is taking will only remove guns from Law-abiding citizens, our rights, and our protection for our freedoms. Enacting this bill to law will infringe people’s rights to traditions and customs such as hunting. The Armalite style firearms a.k.a AR-15 is a very popular rifle among Americans and taking it away would be removing a true American icon very much alike but differ to the icon that protected our freedoms the last 60 years.

Very Respectfully,

Guess Who Just Got a Raise?

Despite not being able to pass a budget in years and taking vacations while there is serious work to do, Congress just got a raise. Issued by Executive Order What a joke! Wish that I could under-perform on my job and be rewarded for it. Maybe this was a carrot on a stick for them, but I certainly do not understand the timing of it as the fiscal cliff looms.

Hedging Their Bets

According to this the Democrats are hedging their bets on ammo capacity. The bill will be introduced along side Feinstein’s AWB. My issue is that 30rd AR magazines (now assault clips) and 10+ round pistol magazines are standard capacity, not “high capacity.” They are what the firearms are issued with.

People fear what they are ignorant of and until recently gun familiarity was in a decline. It wasn’t until Gun Culture 2.0 was became active that “modern sporting rifle” entered the lexicon of the media. We need to educate our opponents through open dialogue and intelligent discourse. Take a non-gunner shooting, take a niece or nephew shooting, buy a gift certificate for a friend. Open their eyes.

Personal Defense, But to What Extent?

This op/ed at Forbes  by Lawrence Hunter seeks to highlight the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. I have to say not only does he highlight it, but he paints a bright neon orange target on it. I don’t know if I have read a more succinct treatise on the Founding Father’s intent with guaranteeing an armed sovereign citizenship. They knew that they were placing an individual’s absolute right to self-ownership (which self-defense is a major part of) over any supposed “collective security” and they were absolutely a-OK with it.

People say the Constitution is either an outdated document or that it is a living document that is subject to change. While I do believe that it is a living document and can/should be changed I hold the Bill of Rights as almost Gospel. Not being sacrilegious at all, but those 10 statements are meant to guarantee our God-given rights that cannot be “amended” away. Additions after the fact are absolutely OK if ratified by 2/3 and do not negate any of the original 10.

I was in a Facebook “discussion” today and made the statement that nothing trumps an individuals basic rights, even if it means that whatever action it applies to might cause harm down the road to society or implied harm to an individual. The person that I was discussing with stated that it was ludicrous to believe in an absolute such as that. What I believe/like may not apply to another person depending on where they are in their life and what they want out of it.

My question… am I the only one who still believes in absolutes? And with that, our absolute 2nd Amendment rights to bare arms against a tyrannical government?