Happy Patriots Day!

Today marks the 234th anniversary of the "Shot Heard 'Round The World". The opening salvo of the American War of Independence occurred on April 19th, 1775 . It is also the date of the first battle against gun control. The only difference was that the enemy government then was the British Crown and not our own "American" politicians, (politicians who have actually sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and, by extension, the Bill of Rights). The British sent their standing army of Regulars to seize the arms of the militia at Concord. Too bad for them that the word of their plans had already been spread far and wide. The weapons were already long gone and the militia had been alerted. What came next is history that should never be forgotten. Especially by those who occupy seats of power and would disarm the populace.

About 700 British Army regulars, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were given secret orders to capture and destroy military supplies that were reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord. Through effective intelligence gathering, Patriot colonials had received word weeks before the expedition that their supplies might be at risk, and had moved most of them to other locations. They also received details about British plans on the night before the battle, and were able to rapidly notify the area militias of the military movement.

The first shots were fired just as the sun was rising at Lexington. The militia were outnumbered and fell back, and the regulars proceeded on to Concord, where they searched for the supplies. At the North Bridge in Concord, several hundred militiamen fought and defeated three companies of the King's troops. The outnumbered regulars fell back from the Minutemen after a pitched battle in open territory.

More Minutemen arrived soon thereafter and inflicted heavy damage on the regulars as they marched back towards Boston. Upon returning to Lexington, Smith's expedition was rescued by reinforcements under Hugh, Earl Percy. A combined force of about 1,700 men marched back to Boston under heavy fire in a tactical withdrawal and eventually reached the safety of Charlestown. The accumulated militias blockaded the narrow land accesses to Charlestown and Boston, starting the Siege of Boston.

The greatest army in the world was turned away by farmers, shopkeepers, smithy's and other "commoners". We stand today because men with courage and fortitude stood against the powers that be and fought back to defend that most basic of rights. The right to keep and bear arms for defence of self and community. Those who would repeat the folly of the Kings men should remember this and hold it as a solid truth. History does repeat itself when necessary. When diplomacy and politics fail the heroes of Patriots Day will stand as inspiration and example to us all.

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
And fired the shot heard round the world.

The foe long since in silence slept;
Alike the conqueror silent sleeps;
And Time the ruined bridge has swept
Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.

On this green bank, by this soft stream,
We set to-day a votive stone;
That memory may their deed redeem,
When, like our sires, our sons are gone.

Spirit, that made those heroes dare
To die, and leave their children free,
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
The shaft we raise to them and thee.

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

While we shall be celebrating Patriots Day today, we can rest assured that those within the Washington, D.C. Beltway will not be paying their respects on this day. This is not a day of reverence for them, it is one of fear.

Technorati Tags:
Patriots Day, Gun Control, Revolution, Libertarian

When Seconds Count

Once again we have a large scale killing in a victim disarmament zone and it is pointed out just why individuals should exercise their natural born right to self defence. In Binghamton, NY a madman named Jiverly Wong (Voong) armed himself with two handguns (not a rifle, as many press sources initially indicated yesterday), and entered an immigrant aid centre and murdered 13 people. He then took his own life. Similar incidents have occurred before and likely will occur again, especially in places where the would be victims are disarmed by politicians and the police. New York state is a vicitm disarmament zone from border to border, denying New Yorkers the basic liberty of self defence at all times.

It is painfully obvious from this, and similar incidents, that the police are worse than useless. They, fearing for their own safety will not act until it is too late. In this case they took over 90 minutes to enter the building where Mr. Wong committed his murders.

The chief defended the time it took officers to go into the building -- an hour to 90 minutes.

"If some crazy lunatic decides to pick up a gun and go someplace and start shooting people, I really don't have the answer how long for us that could prevent anything like that," Zikuski said.

"What I will tell you is that the police did the right thing," he said. "We have procedures and protocols."

Their "procedures and protocols" insure that innocents die while madmen wreak havoc. The only way to insure that this does not happen to you is to exercise your right to defend yourself and those around you, at all times. Maybe you'll break some asinine law crafted by those who would aid and abet murderers, but it most certainly beats the alternative now, doesn't it? Of course you could always play dead, while bleeding from an abdominal wound and then talk to the cops on the phone, while they wait for things to wrap up. I know what I would choose.

Whether you carry "legally" or freely, doesn't matter. What does matter is that you avail yourself of the right at all times. None of the poor souls who were so callously murdered in Binghamton were armed, in fact I would venture to guess that in the course of their "civics" courses their right to defend themselves and others were conveniently overlooked by the instructors. And that's a shame. A greater shame is that people like the Brady Bunch are once again, dancing in the blood of fresh victims to call for the further disarming of Americans and even more will suffer because of their agenda. As we can see, disarming served no-one well in Binghamton and it won't serve any of us either, no matter where we live.

Technorati Tags
Jiverly Voong, Gun Control, Police, News, Libertarian

The Opening Salvo

Well, it's official now. Attorney General Eric Holder has officially announced the Obama regimes intention to the re-institute the expired "Assault Weapons Ban". Not because there is any rise in use of semi-automatic rifles in crimes in the U.S.. Nope, he wants it re-instituted because Mexico is falling apart under the strain of the failed War On Drugs.

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today. "As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.

Mr. Holder and Mr. Obama wish to further the infringement of our rights because a neighbouring country is falling apart. Because violence along the border is escalating and is already spilling over that border, they wish to disarm the very people who may need semi-automatic rifles for protection.

The Obama administration had best pay heed to the words of those out in the real world. Folks aren't going to take disarmament well and there will likely be repercussions. Hopefully, those repercussions will be at the ballot box and not in the streets. Firearms sales of semi-autos are already at an all time high, in anticipation of just such an announcement from the Obama administration. What do these bureaucrats think the reaction will be should they manage to pass another useless firearms ban? Sad to say, but these people are so stupid that they cannot even see beyond their own noses where this issue is concerned. They'd best get new glasses that let them see reality, rather than the world they exist in inside the Beltway.

I wonder if the NRA is regretting not opposing Eric Holders nomination now? Or are they still suffering from Beltway Blindness? And what will the response be from the Libertarian Party? Will they actually join in the fray for once?

For more on this join the discussion over at David Codrea's Examiner column. No doubt there will be lots to be said there and at Digg. This is just the warning shot, the battle is still to come.

Technorati Tags:
2nd Amendment, Eric Holder, Assault Weapons Ban, Obama, News, Libertarian, Mexico, Guns, Drug War


UPDATE: Nancy Pelosi weighs in and denies any push to reenact the AWB. Of course her lips were moving and we all know what that means.

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.

“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference.

Indiana Is A Failure. Thank Goodness!

The Brady Bunch has posted their ratings for 2008 and Indiana is an abysmal failure when it comes to infringing on the rights of the people who live there.


Now if we can only work on getting rid of their partial ratings we'll be a lot better off. I must say that I am rather pleased with the results, although I think Indiana is capable of a great big zero next year if we really try. The state needs to be stripped of the ability to keep records of gun sales and cities and towns need to rescind local ordinances that infringe on the right to carry in many locations.

We also need Vermont or Alaska style carry laws that would do away with the current permit system and return Indiana to a Constitutional position on firearms and self defence. Alaska scored a 4 out of 100, surely the Hoosier state can do better than Alaska? It's certainly something for libertarians to get behind. Let's be the biggest losers in the country next year!

Technorati Tags:
Guns, News, Gun Control, Libertarian, Indiana

Coming Clean

At last one of the legions of Obama followers has decided to come clean where their anti-2nd Amendment/Victim Disarmament is concerned.

Nobody can accuse Obama of campaigning dishonestly on the issue of gun control. The nation's first modern urban president repeatedly explained that his understanding of the Second Amendment included the need for restrictions aimed at reducing gun violence, especially in the cities. In a sign that he intended to win on the issue by shooting straight with voters, he even mentioned his gun-control agenda during his Denver acceptance speech, challenging the idea that gun control was a third rail that guaranteed defeat in states like Ohio and Virginia.

As codified in his urban policy platform, Obama consistently advocated for increasing law enforcement's ability to trace guns by reinstituting tracking legislation repealed by the Bush administration; closing the famous "gun show loophole" that allows gun buyers to avoid background checks; mandating additional safety features on U.S.-manufactured guns; and resurrecting the expired ban on assault weapons and making it permanent.

Now, all of us gun owners already knew the score and had mentioned it more than once, but it's always nice to be validated. This guy even goes so far as to point out the personae dramatica in the upcoming drama.

Not only do Obama and Biden have strong gun control records, the incoming attorney general is a one-man gun control lobby unto himself. As deputy A.G. in the Clinton administration, Eric Holder advocated federal licensing requirements for handguns, a three-day waiting period on some gun sales and rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month. More recently, he signed an amicus brief in support of the District of Columbia's handgun ban when it came before the Supreme Court. The conservative site newsmax.com calls Holder a "gun control nightmare."

It's too bad that things are likely to become rather nasty when this issue does rear its ugly head. Oh, well. That's why they call it the law of unintended consequences.

Technorati Tags:
Guns, 2nd Amendment, Obama, Libertarian

Just One More Reason

As if any sane person needed further proof that Obama had ill intentions towards gun owners and, especially those who have Concealed Carry Permits here's his own words as indictment. He'd love nothing more than telling the people of Indiana that they were not able to carry weapons for self defence. He'd willingly turn the entire country into Chicago. The only problem with this is that most of us would just ignore his rules and hope that police would, too. He'd willingly shred the 10th and 9th Amendments. Did anyone expect less of him? While I plan on voting for NOTA, Obama is clearly the most dangerous candidate out there, especially where gun owners are concerned. His own words, presented here, prove it once again. His lies concerning the 2nd Amendment and his "support of it ring hollow and false to any but the fanatic.



Hat Tip to War on Guns

Technorati Tags:
Obama, Gun Control, Libertarian, Politics, Election 2008

A Few Reactions To Heller

The usual suspects are out in force, running their mouths and looking for a chance to dance in the blood of the innocents.

"I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it."
- Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

Can you imagine my complete lack of surprise that this harridan has decided to come down on the side she did? She'd much rather see women raped and murdered than defend themselves with a firearm. Way to go Comrade Feinstein.

"Today, President Bush's radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future."
- Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.

Bob Barr's gun control buddy is just another in a long line of people that hate the right of self defence. The passage of his Lautenberg Amendment, (with the support and aid of Bob Barr) has managed to disarm thousands of innocent people for misdemeanors. Why should we expect anything different, right?

"Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."
- Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

As with virtually everything that comes from this petty Marxists mouth he manages to say something and nothing at the same time. Perhaps someone will manage to force a more detailed comment from him. We all know what his true feelings are, given his history.

"Eighty people a day die at the hands of guns. We have got to stop that. The court clearly ruled that reasonable regulations are permitted under that decision."
- New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg

As if there were ever any chance that NYC laws would be changed. Mr. Bloomberg's city is surely one which will see a lawsuit in the near future, if there's any true justice. Unfortunately, as long as NYC has the power to tax their pockets will be deep, where funding of court cases are concerned.

I could only hope that Indiana will take this as a positive sign and do away with their permit system, going to an Alaska or Vermont style carry law - which is more in line with the original intent. We'll have to see what our state politicians say in the coming days.

Technorati Tags:
Heller vs DC, Gun Control, Libertarian, Politics, Indiana

Heller Is In And...

It disappoints in many areas. While it affirms that the right to keep and bear arms for defence of self and property, it also leaves intact an array of infringements on the right.

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederal-
ists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-
bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpre-
tation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-
rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con-
cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-
arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scru-
tiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbi-
trarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a
dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ.,
joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS,
SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

There you have it. The decision that affirms an individual right that most of us already knew existed. Unfortunately, in affirming that right it leaves intact certain provisions which are clearly infringements upon that right. Things such as licensing and registration are allowable under this ruling, as are weapons bans like the assault weapons ban.

While I applaud the decision, I cannot help but be concerned about certain clarifications in the decision.

Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

This one sentence undoes everything which went before, as it presents the Amendment as something which does not apply to the states, only to the Feds. Whether is will be applied in that fashion is an unknown which will obviously play out over the coming months and years. If Heller is allowed to stand, as is, then we will undoubtedly see the challenges mount in places such as Chicago, New York and Los Angeles. I can't wait to see them, either. These cases will likely see their day before the SCOTUS, just as Heller did and will serve to further clarify the issue. Not that it needed clarification for some of us. I'm still going to have to sit and think about this one for awhile and then see how it plays out.

Dave Codrea, over at War On Guns has some insight, as well. The War on Guns: HELLER AFFIRMED.


Congratulations to the Heller team and all those who supported them from the outset, (that would not be the NRA, for those who have paid attention).


UPDATE: Radley Balko wades in and touches on the incorporation issue in the Heller decision. Or really the lack of incorporation.
Technorati Tags:
Heller, Guns, 2nd Amendment, Libertarian, Gun Control

Gun Free Zone Erupts

Imagine my complete lack of surprise to see that Chicago had a banner weekend for murder, shootings and stabbings. I can't help but wonder how many rapes, robberies or burglaries also occurred during that same time period. How can this possibly occur in the paradise that is Chicago? Didn't they ban firearms? I know that I am not allowed to visit their city and bring a firearm with me for my safety and that of my family, with whom I would be traveling. I've checked on it. It looks like chaos reigns supreme in Mr. Daly's paradise by the lake.

In an especially violent weekend, no less than 31 people have been shot in Chicago -- six fatally -- and two people have been stabbed since noon Friday. The shooting victims range in age from 12 to 65.

By comparison I, (carrying my sidearm) went out this weekend and shot absolutely no-one. Had a nice impromptu dinner at Five Guys with my visiting dad, brother and the kids, ignored the other patrons and I didn't shoot one single person. My firearm didn't get out and do any damage on its own, either.

Chicago seems to have a problem. Too many gun laws would be my guess. A lot of innocent people managed to get hurt and killed there because they, unlike myself, were unable to defend themselves. The government disarmed them and made victims of them.

About 6 a.m., a man broke into an apartment in the 1900 block of West Winona Street and stabbed a man, 26, and woman, 30. Both people were taken to Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center in critical condition.

If this had happened in my neighbourhood the results would likely have been very different. Never bring a knife to a gun fight isn't just a trite saying. It's a way of life.

REAL ID Redux

It's been some time since I wrote anything concerning the seemingly inevitable REAL ID Act and what the department of Homeland Security plans to use it for. Well, Declan McCullagh, over at CNET has a new piece on some of the most frequently asked questions concerning this travesty and how they'll go about foisting it upon the American people, (whether we wish it or not). One of the questions jumped right out at me, since it exposed yet another lever in their arsenal.

Q: What about buying firearms?
That's an open question. Homeland Security last month refused to rule out requiring Real ID for firearm purchases in the future.

When asked about requiring Real ID to buy a firearm, Homeland Security replied: "DHS will continue to consider additional ways in which a Real ID license can or should be used and will implement any changes to the definition of 'official purpose' or determinations regarding additional uses for Real ID consistent with applicable laws and regulatory requirements. DHS does not agree that it must seek the approval of Congress as a prerequisite to changing the definition in the future."

Not that a significant segment of the NRA crowd wasn't already on board with the national ID scheme, ( little brown people and t'rrists are hard acts to follow), but this has the potential to make things exceedingly difficult for those of us who are opposed to this and are gun owners and 2nd Amendment advocates. The worse part is that these DHS thugs don't even require oversight or Congressional approval for their infringements upon our rights. If they take the decision to impose new rules that require REAL ID Act approved documentation to purchase firearms, then it's a done deal.

Q: Does Homeland Security have the authority to do that kind of expansion, or can only Congress expand Real ID?
Homeland Security has the authority. The text of the law says that, starting May 11, "a federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver's license or identification card issued by a state to any person unless the state is meeting the requirements of this section." Official purpose is defined to include "any other purposes" that Homeland Security thinks is wise.

The potential list of "purposes" could be long. Real ID could in theory be required for traveling on Amtrak, collecting federal welfare benefits, signing up for Social Security, applying for student loans, interacting with the U.S. Postal Service, entering national parks, and so on.

If gunowners think they're safe then they are sadly mistaken and are on the wrong side of the issue. The time is here and now to put your foot down and just say no to the REAL ID Act. We do not need an internal passport. Especially, one which is as insecure as the REAL ID cards will be. No encryption and your info is not only shared with other states, Mexico and Canada, it will also be available to any 7-11, bar, grocery store or business with a scanner. Talk about ID theft potential. Not only will your rights as a gun owner be imperiled your every expectation of privacy will be shredded along with those rights.

My rights as a gun owner are no longer negotiable, especially where the DHS is concerned. Yours shouldn't be either. Take a stand now, because regaining your rights is a hell of a lot harder.

Technorati Tags:
Libertarian, REAL ID, Department of Homeland Security, Gun Owners, 2nd Amendment

They Are Not Your Friends. They Are The Enemy.

How often do gun owners need to be told this? Republicans, Democrats and politicians in general are not your friends. Few of them take a pro-gun stance as anything other than an election year tactic. And it should be abundantly clear by now that the bureaucrats in D.C. certainly are not our friends, especially those in the law enforcement sector. So, why should it come as any surprise when George Bush sends his Solicitor General to the Supreme Court to side with the anti 2nd Amendment forces arrayed against the upcoming case of District of Columbia v. Heller?

George Bush is no friend of the 2nd Amendment. Few politicians are. I, for one don't understand how gun owners kept voting for him. What did he ever do for us? He was eagerly awaiting a chance to sign the AWB, but was thwarted by the grass roots efforts of folks like the GOA, (the NRA was, until the very last minute in favour of the AWB being re-instated so they could get a piece of pet legislation passed. The NRA are also not your friends). Beyond this what has he actually done for us? Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero.

Right now there are actually gun owners out there defending Republicans where your gun rights are concerned. I can't imagine a greater incidence of delusion. Defending any politician where guns are concerned is sheer folly. They will all surrender your rights, take them, infringe them or just flat out refuse them at any time, for the sake of "political expediency". This instance is all about power, (as are most of them) and its maintenance by the so-called Department of Justice.

John Lott cut straight to the heart of the matter.

Worried about the possibility that a Supreme Court decision supporting the Second Amendment as an individual right could “cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation,” the Department of Justice felt it necessary to head off any restrictions on government power right at the beginning.

Politicians crave power. It doesn't matter if they are already ensconced in the halls of power or are currently seeking to be the ultimate power broker in the form of the Presidency. They continuously tell gun owners what we wish to hear. It's long past the time that gun owners woke up to this fact and acted accordingly.

Unfortunately, it may take an uprising by voters to rein in the Justice Department.

Unfortunately, Mr. Lott may only be partially correct in his final statement. Voting is unlikely to change things and voting for Republicrats is especially useless.

Technorati Tags:
2nd Amendment, Gunowners, Libertarian, District of Columbia v.Heller,Bush,Politics, Gun Control

The NRA Conundrum

The NRA has been on my mind a good deal lately and for good reason. It seems that everywhere I look I see someone being inconvenienced or thrown to the wolves by the NRA, when they should be being courted by the NRA. Recent commentary by a well known poster over at The Boondocks, brought the NRA to mind, once again. Mama Liberty, a staunch advocate of open carry and the arming of women, was lamenting the necessity of having to acquire an NRA membership and training in order to teach women the basics of firearm safety and shooting.

I agree that the training is extremely important and that much of it just wouldn't happen without the NRA, but I'm not happy about being a part of an organization that is so clearly working against our basic right to self defense in the long run.

I know just how she feels. I've avoided the NRA for decades because of an early realisation that they would, and had, happily leapt right into bed with the government. I never had the feeling that they would protect their members in an way from a gun grabbing government. That's a feeling that has never gone away for me. Their reputation has never increased in my eyes and, in fact it has sunk farther and farther as the years have gone by.

The NRA has taken the wrong side on a number of issues, they've cooperated with the government to impose new regulations and oppose repeal of anti-2nd Amendment laws and regulations. They have been more than willing to compromise away our rights and have done so, time and again. I have a problem with that.

Lately we've even seen that one of their board members, Joaquin Jackson, has espoused gun control measures that would affect the many people who own scary looking AK's or AR's. Of course he lied, he waffled, after there was a hue and cry over his back stabbing remarks. It's just a never ending story with these guys.

And that brings me to my conundrum. I have a couple of shooting ranges in my area. One is quite literally around the corner from my home. Both have one requirement that I either cannot fulfill. They require their members to have...you guessed it....NRA memberships, to join. So, as it stands, I have to travel about 25-30 minutes to the west side of Indianapolis and pay a $10 range fee every time I wish to go shooting. I'd love to be able to drive 2 minutes and shoot a stones throw from my home and do so more often, but I choose to do otherwise. I sure wish these clubs would accept memberships in Gun Owners of America or the JPFO, instead. It sure would make things easier to be a member of an organisation that refuses to compromise our rights away.

The continuing fascination with the NRA is beyond me. It's like those people who keep voting for Republicans hoping for smaller government and never getting it. It's delusional. So, what's a guy to do? *sigh*

Technorati Tags:
NRA, Guns, Gun Control, Libertarian, Joaquin Jackson