Cap'n Bob & the Damsel

Second Amendment

Rush Limbaugh’s Talking Points

debate.jpgSo, for the last several weeks, it has been the plan of the Democrats to call out Rush Limbaugh as the ‘de facto’ head of the Republican party. Today, Limbaugh responded by inviting President Obama to come on his program “without staffers, without a teleprompter, without note cards — to debate me on the issues.”

Basically, Rush figures that Obama needs to clear the air with regard to the following talking points:

  • Let’s talk about free markets versus government control.
  • Let’s talk about nationalizing health care and raising taxes on small business.
  • Let’s talk about the New Deal versus Reaganomics.
  • Let’s talk about closing Guantanamo Bay.
  • Let’s talk about sending $900 million to Hamas.
  • Let’s talk about illegal immigration and the lawlessness on the borders.
  • Let’s talk about massive deficits and the destroying of opportunities of future generations.
  • Let’s talk about ACORN, community agitators, and the unions that represent the government employees which pour millions of dollars into your campaign, President Obama.
  • Let’s talk about your elimination of school choice for minority students in the District of Columbia.
  • Let’s talk about your efforts to further reduce domestic drilling and refining of oil.
  • Let’s talk about your stock market.

To which I would add,

Let’s talk about the true meaning of the Second Amendment and the right of the people to own and carry arms.

Of course, Obama and his ilk would never agree to talking about these things, since they are the cowards that Attorney General Eric Holder spoke of last week.

04 Mar 2009 by Second Amendment Whacko Politics

California – Worst Anti Gun Laws in the Country

This nice piece of eye-candy is illegal in California UNLESS OWNED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT.

para-large-rifle.gif

This morning I read a post over at Ballseye’s Boomers where Glenn asks the question, “Is It Something In The Water?” He quotes a soft-headed Californian who wonders “why gun locks couldn’t be enforced in the city – forcing gang members to lock their guns in order to transport them“. My reaction is basically in agreement with Glenn’s observation that people in California are getting more indoctrination than education in the terrible school system here.

That, and the worst (and most ridiculous) gun laws in the USA, none of which make Californians safer. Consider the following generic restrictions on arms in this state; you will probably find most of them laughable:

The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, its subsequent augmentation in 1999, and the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004 has led to many restrictions on semi-automatic firearms. In addition to a lengthy list of specific firearms that are banned by name, the following firearms are banned by characteristic:

  1. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
    • A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
    • A thumbhole stock.
    • A folding or telescoping stock.
    • A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
    • A flash suppressor.
    • A forward pistol grip.
  2. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
  3. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches [762 mm].
  4. A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
    • A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
    • A second handgrip
    • A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
    • The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
  5. A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
  6. A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
    • A folding or telescoping stock.
    • A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
  7. A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
  8. Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
23 Feb 2009 by California Degenerates Firearms Second Amendment Whacko Politics

Rahm Thumb

One of the more egregious figures in the Obamination White House is Thief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel. In Congress, Emanuel earned an “F” rating from NRA, and while working in the Clinton Administration, he was known as the “point man on gun control.” He is an avowed enemy of the Second Amendment and will wield enormous power in the battle for the future of our firearm freedoms.

With the economy in crisis, this opportunity isn’t lost on the new president and his team. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Emanuel told a Wall Street Journal conference of top corporate chief executives. He elaborated: “Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”

Emanuel says these things as he thumbs his nose at the American Public.

Roll your mouse over Emanuel’s picture to see what the Ghost of President Ronald Reagan thinks of Rahm Thumb’s gesture.

17 Feb 2009 by Second Amendment Whacko Politics

Understanding the Second Amendment

patriotAbout a year ago, we posted an article about U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX). Hutchison led the charge in the U.S. Congress to get members of both houses to support the Second Amendment. She, and 54 other Senators, along with 250 U. S. Representatives and Vice President Dick Cheney signed on to one of the many amici filed in support of the Heller position in the landmark D.C. vs. Heller case.

I recently happened to look at the amicus prepared on behalf of Hutchison and the Members of Congress by Constitutional Expert and Attorney Stephen P. Halbrook. Halbrook’s amicus recalls that the Congress has a long history of protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment was proposed to the States by the Congress in 1789. On several occasions, in different epochs of American history, the Congress enacted statutory texts which explicitly declared its understanding of the Second Amendment as guaranteeing fundamental, individual rights.

The Second Amendment text is as follows:

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.

That’s good – the Founders boiled it down to specific, unambiguous language. In it, there are five key nouns – ‘militia,’ ‘state,’ ‘right,’ ‘people‘ and ‘arms.’ There are two key verbs – ‘keep‘ and ‘bear.’ Keep these keywords in mind as you continue to read.

The phrase “the right of the people” also appears in the First Amendment – “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The Fourth Amendment guarantees: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . .”

Opponents of Second Amendment rights want you to think that this identical wording means something different in the First and Fourth Amendments. You can’t have it one way with freedom of dissent and freedom from search and seizure, and a completely different meaning when it comes to the ‘right of the people‘ to keep and bear arms.

The constitutional text distinguishes between “the people,” “the militia,” and the “States.” The Second Amendment refers to “a well regulated militia,” but the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed to “the people.”

That’s quite clear: militia does not equal people. The ability of the militia to provide security on behalf of the state depends on the right of the people to own and bear arms. The ability of individuals to provide for their own security, likewise, depends on this right.

The Second Amendment refers to the right to “keep” arms (such as at home) as well as to “bear” arms (meaning to carry them). Protected arms include commonly-kept firearms that one can keep and carry for lawful purposes, such as ordinary rifles, handguns, and shotguns, and not crew-served or heavy weapons.

Despite laws to the contrary, every law-abiding citizen who has reached majority should have the right to own and carry his/her gun at all times.

And now, the meaning of “state” . . .

The Amendment declares a well regulated militia to be necessary to the security of a “free State,” which means a free country, and is not restricted to a State government.

Halbrook, in the Congressional Amicus for Heller, decomposes the language of the Second Amendment into its component parts to reveal the true meaning of the Founders. If you read the Complete Brief (PDF) prepared by Halbrook, you can discover some of the history about how the Second Amendment evolved into its present form.

Don’t forget to check out Stephen Halbrook’s Second Amendment Book Bomb.

16 Feb 2009 by Second Amendment

TASER XREP Shotgun Stun Projectile

While a TASER XREP might be a good non-lethal solution to a home invader, I would recommend the next round in the magazine to be a standard 12-gauge double-ought round – Just in case.

Taser XREP

How Stuff Works has a new article on this interesting technology.

Creating a device small enough to fit into a shotgun shell casing but powerful enough to incapacitate a subject was no easy task. The development team at TASER had to find a way to balance power with size. Not only did they need the device to travel farther than a standard TASER, but also to have the right amount of mass. If it had too little mass, it wouldn’t travel far enough. But if it had too much mass, it could become a deadly projectile rather than a non-lethal solution.

UPDATE: This has nothing to do with this post, but deserves your attention. Gun Rights Examiner has details about a teacher getting suspended for having a picture on Facebook while holding a gun. Recommended reading for sure.

06 Feb 2009 by Second Amendment Technobabble

The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and urge him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 197!

NCCWH.R. 197, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns’ (R-Fla.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.), would allow any person with a valid concealed firearm carrying permit or license, issued by a state, to carry a concealed firearm in any state, as follows: In states that issue concealed firearm permits, a state’s laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. In states that do not issue carry permits, a federal “bright-line” standard would permit carrying in places other than police stations; courthouses; public polling places; meetings of state, county, or municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports; and certain other locations. The bill applies to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. It would not create a federal licensing system; it would require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.

• Today, 48 states have laws permitting concealed carry, in some circumstances. Forty states, accounting for two-thirds of the U.S. population, have RTC laws. Thirty-six have “shall issue” permit laws (including Alaska, which also allows carrying without a permit), three have fairly administered “discretionary issue” permit laws, and Vermont (and Alaska) allow carrying without a permit. (Eight states have restrictive discretionary issue laws.) Most RTC states have adopted their laws in the last decade.

• Citizens with carry permits are more law-abiding than the general public. Only 0.01% of nearly 1.2 million permits issued by Florida have been revoked because of firearm crimes by permit holders. Similarly low percentages of permits have been revoked in Texas, Virginia, and other RTC states that keep such statistics. RTC is widely supported by law enforcement officials and groups.

• States with RTC laws have lower violent crime rates. On average, 22% lower total violent crime, 30% lower murder, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault, compared to the rest of the country. The seven states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. (Data: FBI.)

• Crime declines in states with RTC laws. Since adopting RTC in 1987, Florida’s total violent crime and murder rates have dropped 32% and 58%, respectively. Texas’ violent crime and murder rates have dropped 20% and 31%, respectively, since its 1996 RTC law. (Data: FBI.)

• The right of self-defense is fundamental, and has been recognized in law for centuries. The Declaration of Independence asserts that “life” is among the unalienable rights of all people. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for “security.”

• The laws of all states and constitutions of most states recognize the right to use force in self-defense. The Supreme Court has stated that a person “may repel force by force” in self-defense, and is “entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force” as needed to prevent “great bodily injury or death.” (Beard v. U.S., 1895)

• Congress affirmed the right to guns for “protective purposes” in the Gun Control Act (1968) and Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (1986). In 1982, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution described the right to arms as “a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms.”

Reprinted from the NRA-ILA.

31 Jan 2009 by CCW Second Amendment

Gun Control 2009

Gun control looms as a major domestic issue, now that President Barack Obama has assumed the position. The President has been openly against private gun ownership during his entire political career. His choice of anti-gunners Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle and (worst of all) Eric Holder to become cabinet-level officials adds credence to the possibility that guns are a target (seems backwards, doesn’t it?) of the new administration.

Most of us, however, think that “gun control,” as a national issue, is less about guns and more about control. Leftists have been relentless in trying to disarm Americans, not only here in the USA, but everywhere in the world where socialism and totalitarianism thrive. The United Nations has been especially antagonistic toward guns with constant pressure to sign international accords to disarm.

We’re bracing ourselves for the perfect storm against the Second Amendment.

I had to work today, otherwise I might have been tempted to head to the range as Liberty Sphere suggested, to practice the kind of gun control you can believe in . . .

two-plus-one.jpg

Two to the heart, one to the head silhouette target practice – August 2008.

UPDATE: Robb Allen speaks French? Nice Mozambique!

20 Jan 2009 by Second Amendment Shooting Whacko Politics

Categories

Archives