Cap'n Bob & the Damsel

Second Amendment

Going to the 2A Blog Bash

Blog BashWe’re still working out the details, but in a month, we’re going to head towards Phoenix to attend the NRA Convention and the Second Amendment Blog Bash.

We liked our winter cruise that we took this past December so much, that we decided to rent a motorhome again for this trip. That way, we can do some spring break sightseeing and camping with the convention and Bash as the centerpiece.

There are a few logistical details that still need to be resolved. We’re bringing our dog, ‘Bear,’ with us, so we need to find a kennel to leave her while we’re doing the convention/bash thing. If any Phoenicians out there have any ideas, we would welcome them.

Second, we’re not sure where we can park our RV near the convention center. We have a space reserved in a local RV park, but will have to drive to the convention center each of the two days we plan to attend. I’m sure that there has to be some accommodations for bus/RV traffic, but we just haven’t figured that out yet.

We’re looking forward to the trip and hope to meet many like-minded Second Amendment supporters and firearms enthusiasts. We can hardly wait.

14 Apr 2009 by Second Amendment Travel

When Logic Fails

The London Times
London Times

. . . it’s usually due to faulty logic.

This is from James Taranto who writes for the Wall Street Journal’s “Best of the Web Today:”

Blighty’s Butterfield

Chris Ayres of London’s Times is puzzled by what seems to him a paradox:

If anything, the recent shootings have inspired more Americans to buy guns, recession or no recession. In fact, all over the country they are stocking up on as many pistols, rifles, and shotguns as possible before the Obama Administration bans or taxes them.

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the FBI carried out more than 4.2 million background checks on behalf of gundealers from November to January (a check is required with every sale), up 31 per cent on the same period in the previous year.

Interestingly, however, violent crime rates have at the same time been falling in Los Angeles, New York and other big American cities. The experts are at loss as to explain why this should be happening.

Hmm, could it be because the prospect of armed victims acts as a deterrent? This doesn’t occur to Ayres, but he does offer a theory of his own:

People are buying so many guns that the criminals are simply running out of bullets. Or as one firing instructor explained to the Columbus Dispatch newspaper: “The ammo is being snapped up as soon as it comes in. People are in a frenzy. It’s kind of like that run on Elmo dolls.”

We think our explanation is more likely–but if Ayres’s is true too, so much the better.

Taranto, who does not typically write about guns, gets it. Chris Ayres, writing in the London Times, needs a clue.

UPDATE: Nicki takes Ayres to the woodshed.

08 Apr 2009 by Second Amendment

Gun Ban Not Working in Binghamton

troopersPrayers go out for the victims and their families and friends in today’s horrible attack in Binghamton, NY.

Sensible gun owners now anticipate anti-gun organizations and anti-gunners in the media and government to jump on the spilled blood as leverage to eliminate dangerous guns. If there were only a few legitimate CCW permits issued to building occupants, this crime may have been over before a dozen victims were killed.

John Lott posted this sensible analysis on FoxNews.com:

Time after time multiple-victim public shootings occur in “gun free zones” — public places where citizens are not legally able to carry guns. The horrible attack today in Binghamton, New York is no different. Every multiple-victim public shooting that I have studied, where more than three people have been killed, has taken place where guns are banned.

You would think that it would be an important part of the news stories for a simple reason: Gun-free zones are a magnet for these attacks. Extensive discussions of these attacks can be found here and here. We want to keep people safe, but the problem is that it is the law-abiding good citizens, not the criminals, who obey these laws. We end up disarming the potential victims and not the criminals. Rather than making places safe for victims, we unintentionally make them safe for the criminal.

At some point, you would think the media would notice that something is going on here, that these murderers aren’t just picking their targets at random. And this pattern isn’t really too surprising. Most people understand that guns deter criminals. . . . .

03 Apr 2009 by Degenerates Law and Order 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

Categories

Archives