Free Plaxico Burress!

Super Bowl star Plaxico Burress has been sentenced to two years in prison for accidentally shooting himself. The official story is that he was illegally carrying a concealed, unregistered firearm, but what was his real crime? Well, there was no real crime.

It isn't difficult to understand that even a 6-foot-5, 230-pound wide receiver like Burress would want some form of personal protection when out on the town, especially after what had happened to fellow players Darrent Williams and Sean Taylor. But in these once-free United States you must first get permission from the government before you are allowed to take steps to protect yourself.

Burress threatened no one else and injured no one but himself. In my opinion, the physical pain and humiliation associated with a careless, self-inflicted gunshot wound is punishment enough.

Alas, only "qualified" law enforcement officers are allowed to get off that easily...

President Obama's Life Threatened

OK, not really, but listening to these ignorant fools you'd think that was the case:

They seem to forget that whenever the president makes a public appearance he is surrounded by armed men: secret service agents, military personnel, state troopers, local police. I hardly think we need to be concerned about one guy carrying a handgun in plain sight.

Of course, it isn't surprising that these statist lackeys would be shocked. Guns are something that belong only to the ruling elite. The thought of an average citizen being armed scares them. But, then again, that's the point of the Second Amendment, isn't it?

It Is Getting Very Serious Now

Chuck Baldwin writes:

I'm not sure how many of the American people realize that it was the attempted confiscation of the colonialists' cache of arms in Concord, Massachusetts, that started America's War for Independence. Yes, my friends, it was attempted gun confiscation that triggered (pun intended) the "shot heard 'round the world." And now it would appear that, once again, a central government is on the verge of trying to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms.

I am told that as of 2004, 50% of the adults in the United States own one or more firearms, totaling some 270 million privately owned firearms nationwide. I would venture to say that the vast majority of these gun owners would find themselves matching the DHS profile of a potential "extremist." I wonder how many gun owners realize the way they are now being targeted by their government, and just how serious -- and how close -- the threat of gun confiscation has become?

Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog

This informative blog, authored by Clayton Cramer, is devoted to reports of civilians using guns in self-defense. Check it out here.

Gun-Toting Student Saves Lives

Here's a little news story you won't see covered in the national mainstream press.

In College Park, Georgia, about 10 college students had gathered inside a friend's apartment for a birthday party when two masked gunmen burst through the door. They separated the men from the women and demanded wallets and cell phones.

One of the guests pulled a gun out of a backpack and fired at the thug guarding the men, who immediately bolted from the apartment. The armed student then ran to the room where the women were being held, shouted for them to get down, and proceeded to shoot and kill the other intruder.

The moral of the story: Guns don't save lives; people with guns save lives.

Gun Control Via International Treaty

John Lott Shoots Down ABC's Lies About Guns

ABC attacked the right to keep and bear arms in a report entitled "If I Only Had a Gun." Thankfully, John Lott sets the record straight.

Pelosi on Guns: "We Want Them Registered"

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi admitted this in a recent interview on ABC's Good Morning America:

ROBIN ROBERTS: Under the Bush administration, you pretty much said the ball was in their court when it came to reinstating the [assault weapons] ban. Now, it's a Democratic President, a Democratic House. So, is the ball in your court where this is concerned?

NANCY PELOSI: Yes, it is. And we are just going to have to work together to come to some resolution because the court, in the meantime, in recent months, the Supreme Court has ruled in a very -- in a direction that gives more opportunity for people to have guns. We never denied that right. We don't want to take their guns away. We want them registered. We don't want them crossing state lines as this legislation would do in the District of Columbia. We wouldn't tell any other state what to do. But Congress wants to tell the District of Columbia. So, in any event, there's tremendous work ahead on this. And we have to rid the debate of the misconceptions that people have about what gun safety means.

(See video of the interview here.)

Note that Pelosi wasn't talking about the assault weapons ban in particular. She brought up the D.C. case, which dealt with handguns.

Here's my question: Why bother registering guns if the government has no desire to confiscate them in the future? It simply doesn't make sense. Sure, there currently may be no "official" plan for confiscation, but if it ever came to that, you and I both know that it's the registered guns (i.e. those belonging to law-abiding citizens) that will be targeted first.

Montana Supports the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Chuck Baldwin writes:

The Montana resolution recalls, "When Montana entered into statehood and adopted the Compact as a part of the Montana Constitution in 1889, included was a provision guaranteeing the right to bear arms to 'any person.'"

The resolution continues, "To be clear, the wording of the right to bear arms reservation in the Montana constitution is exactly the same today as it was in 1884."

Furthermore, the Montana resolution says, "There is no question that the contract into which Montana entered for statehood was predicated upon an understanding that the people of Montana would benefit from an individual and personal right to bear arms, protected from governmental interference by both the federal and Montana constitutions. That was the clear intent of the parties to the contract."

The resolution ended by stating sternly, "A collective rights holding in Heller would not only open the Pandora's box of unilaterally morphing contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically entrenched remedies for contract violation."

In other words, representatives and senators in the State of Montana unequivocally put Washington, D.C., on notice that it would not tolerate the infringement of its citizens' right to keep and bear arms. I don't think I'm reading anything into the resolution by assuming that they were implying that they would secede before they let the federal government trample their Second Amendment liberties. (Plus, I've just been told that New Hampshire may also be preparing to propose such a resolution.)

Montana has it exactly right!

Good News for Alabama Gun Owners

Alabama legislators are hoping to prevent the kind of chaos Louisiana saw during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. From the Press-Register:

A bill to prevent state or local government from seizing lawfully owned guns during emergencies sailed through the Alabama House on Thursday and now heads to the Senate, where it was approved last year.

Rep. Mark Keahey, D-Grove Hill, said his measure is aimed at ensuring the chaos that comes with disasters, such as hurricanes, is not made worse by overzealous government officials.

"The Second Amendment gives us a constitutional right to bear arms, and this bill is just an effort, on Alabama's part, to help us maintain that right," Keahey said.

Congressman Keahey isn't entirely correct. The Second Amendment doesn't give us the right to anything; it is there to prevent the federal government from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. But good for Keahey and the citizens of Alabama!

New Strategy in the War on Gun Rights

Proposed Illinois House Bill 687 seeks to place an extra financial burden on law-abiding gun owners. Here is the bill's synopsis as it was introduced:

Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides. Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Effective January 1, 2010.

The intent of this bill is clear: reduce the number of gun owners by making it too expensive for most people to own a gun.

Like all other gun control laws, this will have no effect on criminals. My guess is that they probably aren't going to be all that concerned about whether or not the guns they use to commit crimes carry liability insurance. This bill will only leave more law-abiding citizens defenseless.

Citizens, Protect Yourselves

If the cops can't protect law-abiding citizens, why not allow law-abiding citizens to protect themselves? That's exactly what one city official would like to see. Check it out:

A St. Louis city leader frustrated with the police response to rising crime called Tuesday on residents to arm themselves to protect their lives and property.

Alderman Charles Quincy Troupe said police are ineffective, outnumbered or don't care about the increase in crime in his north St. Louis ward. St. Louis has had 157 homicides in 2008, 33 more than last year at this time.

"The community has to be ready to defend itself, because it's clear the economy is going to get worse, and criminals are getting more bold," Troupe, 72, said Tuesday.

Troupe said that when he and residents approached a district police commander last year, they were told "there was nothing he could do to protect us and the community ... that he didn't have the manpower."

Good for you, Mr. Troupe.

Naturally, Chief Dan Isom of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department disagrees. He wants a more enlightened, "it takes a village" approach:

While police officers have the dangerous job of arresting criminals, we must all be willing to roll up our sleeves and do the work that addresses the underlying reasons why criminals commit crimes---poverty, lack of education, lack of family structure, lack of employment skills, drug addiction. We must work together. We must look out for our neighbors and our neighborhoods. We must care enough to get involved, even if it's not happening in our own backyard. I think all of these things will help but I can't guarantee these are the solutions. However I can say with certainty that the solution is not more guns.

OK, Chief Isom. When will you and your fellow officers be giving up your guns?

Now Showing at Liberty Theater

2A, a 23-minute film on the Second Amendment produced by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

Freedom in Iraq: Gun Confiscation

Iraqi and U.S. troops are now searching private homes in Baghdad for the sole purpose of disarming the citizenry. Could such a thing happen here? It already has, so I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that what's happening in Iraq now is anything more than a training exercise.

We Need More Guns in Schools

From Reuters:

A Texas school district will let teachers bring guns to class this fall, the district's superintendent said on Friday, in what experts said appeared to be a first in the United States.

The board of the small rural Harrold Independent School District unanimously approved the plan and parents have not objected, said the district's superintendent, David Thweatt.

School experts backed Thweatt's claim that Harrold, a system of about 110 students 150 miles northwest of Fort Worth, may be the first to let teachers bring guns to the classroom.

Thweatt said it is a matter of safety.

"We have a lock-down situation, we have cameras, but the question we had to answer is, 'What if somebody gets in? What are we going to do?'" he said. "It's just common sense."

Yes, such a solution makes so much sense that a lot of people are bound to have a problem with it.

Handguns in D.C.? Good Luck Trying to Get One

Mark Segraves of WTOP radio is on a quest to register for a gun license and purchase a firearm in Washington, D.C. You can follow his exploits here:

Despite the fact that they're now legal to own, getting a handgun in the District is going to be impossible -- at least for a while. But this reporter is going to try.

At 7 a.m. Thursday, the Metropolitan Police Department will open its doors at Headquarters and begin taking applications for permits. If you already own an illegal handgun, you're in luck. Because of the 90 day amnesty program, you can bring your gun (unloaded and wrapped up) to the police and apply for a permit. If, like most people, you don't have a gun, you can begin the permit process, but good luck getting a gun. Without a gun store, or someone to transfer the gun, it won't happen legally.

But I'm going to try.

Forget Conceal-Carry...

Why not just carry? From the LA Times:

Having pistols strapped around their waists made Shel Anderson, 67, and his wife, Kaye, 63, feel more secure. Longtime recreational shooters, they began to carry their pistols openly after a spate of home-invasion robberies in their neighborhood. The firearms can serve as a warning to predators, they said.

"I decided I want to have as much of an advantage as I can have in this day and age," said Kaye Anderson, a retired schoolteacher.

Nearby, Scott Thompson picked over the remains of a salad, his Springfield Armory XD-35 sitting snugly in his hip holster.

The gangly graphics designer grew up in a home without guns and didn't think of owning one until he started dating a woman -- now his wife -- who lived in a rough neighborhood. One night last year, a youth had his head beaten in with a pipe outside her bedroom window. The next day, Thompson got a concealed-weapons permit.

Thompson found out about open carry last month while reading gun sites. He's become a convert. He likes the statement it makes.

Glancing around the restaurant, as armed families like the Jensens dined with men in cowboy hats and professionals like himself, Thompson smiled.

"I love this," he said. "I want people to be aware that crazy people are not the only ones with guns. Normal people carry them."

Wake Up!

Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton on the legislation of tyranny:

The assaults of the Bush regime on civil liberty, the Constitution, and the separation of powers are more determined and more successful than its military assaults on the Middle East, which provide the "war time" justification for the attack on civil liberty in the United States. The regime and its supporters are determined to raise the president to dictatorial powers, at least in times of war, the initiation of which is being turned into a presidential prerogative.

Charley Reese on the Second Amendment:

The Founding Fathers were not urban neurotics like so many of today's politicians. They were almost all outdoor people. Guns were to them just tools, like their axes or plows. You couldn't survive in the wilderness without firearms, and at the time of our Revolution, there were only about 3 million people from Maine to Georgia.

Nor were there any police forces. There was no Secret Service, FBI or any of the other alphabet law-enforcement agencies. If you decided to travel, you traveled at your own risk, and you can bet people traveled armed.

Why refer to these articles in the same post? Because they both remind us of what this country used to stand for: individual liberty.

The government used to exist to protect the rights of the individual. Now, with so much power concentrated in the hands of a few "urban neurotics," Americans no longer understand what it means to be free. As long as the trains run on time, they aren't worried about civil liberties. As long as they can still hunt, they don't concern themselves with the unconstitutional infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.

Our "representatives" in Washington have for decades been dismantling the Constitution and every other check on political power. I'm not talking about some secret Illuminati conspiracy to take over the world. I'm talking about human nature. As Lord Acton stated, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Our freedoms are disappearing with every administration that assumes office. Republican, Democrat, it doesn't matter.

The only hope is for Americans to reclaim their country. Wake up and start paying attention before it's too late.

Gun Rights vs. Property Rights

The National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), is praising the enactment of Georgia House Bill 89. Governor Sonny Perdue (R) signed the bill into law yesterday.

Among its provisions is one that allows "concealed carry permit holders to carry in restaurants." That should make constitutionalists like me happy, right? Wrong.

Now, if I were a restaurant owner, I would have absolutely no problem welcoming customers who happened to be carrying a weapon. In fact, I would feel much safer. The chances of me being robbed would drop dramatically.

But not everyone feels the way I do about a well-armed citizenry. Some people feel squeamish about guns and just don't want them around. Why shouldn't they have the right to ban them from their own property?

Sure, this law will have all the gun advocates cheering, but it is at the expense of property ownership. The irony is that the right to keep and bear arms used to be thought of as necessary for the protection of private property rights. Go figure.

Vigilantism Redefined

Vigilantism has always been characterized as an act of vengeance. If you hurt me or someone I love and I come after you as judge, jury, and executioner, then I would be a vigilante. I would be taking the law into my own hands, and that would be wrong.

But vigilantism has been redefined to include legitimate acts of self-defense -- at least in California. Police in Oakland are worried about vigilantes after two robbers were shot and wounded by store owners. Deputy Police Chief Dave Kozicki admitted that people do have a right to protect themselves, but he doesn't want to see everyone packing heat. "That's a concern that law enforcement has all the time," he said, "that people will engage in vigilantism."

Folks in the Oakland area may remember Kozicki (then a captain) from the following 2006 campaign video criticizing Charles Poochigian who was running for Attorney General. Kozicki's beef? As a state senator Poochigian refused to sign on to California's 2005 ban on .50 caliber rifles. Take a look:

It's no surprise to me that a guy like this would equate self-defense with vigilantism.