Perhaps I was too hard on Alan Gura...

From subguns.com:

"Thanks for your support.

The solution to 922(o) will have to be political in the end. The fact is, outside the gun community, the concept of privately owned machine guns is intolerable to American society and 100% of all federal judges. If I had suggested in any way -- including, by being evasive and indirect and fudging the answer -- that machine guns are the next case and this is the path to dumping 922(o) -- I'd have instantly lost all 9 justices. Even Scalia. There wasn't any question of that, at all, going in, and it was confirmed in unmistakable fashion when I stood there a few feet from the justices and heard and saw how they related to machine guns. It was not just my opinion, but one uniformly held by ALL the attorneys with whom we bounced ideas off, some of them exceedingly bright people. Ditto for the people who wanted me to declare an absolute right, like I'm there to waive some sort of GOA bumper sticker. That's a good way to lose, too, and look like a moron in the process.

I didn't make the last 219 years of constitutional law and I am not responsible for the way that people out there -- and on the court-- feel about machine guns. Some people in our gun rights community have very.... interesting.... ways of looking at the constitution and the federal courts. I don't need to pass judgment on it other than to say, it's not the reality in which we practice law. When we started this over five years ago, the collective rights theory was the controlling law in 47 out of 50 states. Hopefully, on next year's MBE, aspiring lawyers will have to bubble in the individual rights answer to pass the test. I know you and many others out there can appreciate that difference and I thank you for it, even if we can't get EVERYTHING that EVERYONE wants. Honestly some people just want to stay angry. I'm glad you're not among them.

You want to change 922(o)? Take a new person shooting. Work for "climate change."

Thanks,
Alan"

Perhaps...

(h/t) Days of Our Trailers

This is it!

Tomorrow's the big day ladies and gentlemen!

If you're religious, pray for a good outcome. I shudder to think what might happen if they botch it up...

Why you should carry everyday!

Here's a good article from WND.

Here's a sample. Be sure and read the whole thing.

"The first step to stopping criminals from acting like they are entitled to rob, rape and murder is to get as many honest, law-abiding citizens as possible out in society carrying a gun. If the deranged killers knew they wouldn't get a shot off before being gun downed, they would find a different outlet for their rage. Instead, they are most likely to find a location where everyone turns and runs like sheep or choose to meekly submit.

Usually, after a person submits he is shot.

Instead of kneeling down to be executed or running like frightened rabbits, people should use their right to bear arms and fight back. Only by stacking the deck in favor of the law-abiding can we hope to stop criminals from preying on innocent people. Two things need to happen to put criminals on alert."

(H/T) to Jeffersonian

An abuse victim takes the cops to court

This is just incredible. This woman is lucky to be alive after all she's been through. This woman did everything by the book, but restraining orders are only any good if they're out of Kevlar. Armed self defense is the best option for coming out of a situation alive. The cops have no duty to protect you either.

I wish her luck in her suit, but I don't think she will prevail.

"JONESVILLE - Vernetta Cockerham-Ellerbee peeled back the curtain of her bedroom window and saw the man she once loved enough to marry.

Hunched over in a field across the street, Richard Ellerbee toiled, shoveling clumps of dirt over his shoulder. She glanced past him to the nearby police station in this rural Piedmont town of 2,000. She spotted one of the department's nine officers just beyond the station's front door.

Cockerham-Ellerbee rang the station: He's back, she whispered. He was once again violating the judge's order to stay away. Police didn't catch Ellerbee that day. Cockerham-Ellerbee repeatedly reported her husband's threats during the summer and fall of 2002. He never spent a night in jail.

She didn't know what he was up to with the shovel until he called days later to explain: He was digging graves to bury her and the children.

Ellerbee delivered on his threat in November 2002. He broke into their home and fatally stabbed his teenage stepdaughter, Candice Cockerham. He left Cockerham-Ellerbee for dead, too, slicing open her neck with a shard of glass."

Read the whole thing here.

What the Anti's Want

Sear and Hammer has a rather graphic video on his blog of a vicious attack in the Netherlands (Rotterdam) in which a woman was stabbed over seventy times by a knife wielding psychopath. The bystanders try ineffectually several times to "karate kick" the attacker into submission without success. This attack goes on for some time before someone is able to drag him off of her. Fortunately the victim lived, although she still suffers from the aftereffects. After trying brutally to kill this woman, the attacker only got four years in prison.

Four freaking years!

In a perfect world, a helpful bystander would have pulled out their gun and blown the motherf&%#@& away. No trial, no parole, no coming back to harm his victim in four years.

Here is what wikipedia has to say about Netherlands gun law:

"Dutch gun law is typical of the Western European approach. Firearm possession is not subject to any constitutional protections, but regulated simply in the Arms and Ammunition Act (Wet Wapens en Munitie). Weapons, including firearms, are divided into four categories, and for each of the categories a certain maximum punishment is set for "voorhanden hebben" (possession), and "dragen" (carrying in public).

Only citizens who are members of hunting and shooting sports clubs may obtain licences for weapons. And even then they may only get a licence for category III weapons (sports weapons).

Firearm possession and use by the military and the police is not subject to Arms and Ammunition Act, but regulated separately.

Sale is only for those age 17 or over."

So basically, every law abiding citizen is unarmed. No wonder the only weapons on display in this video is a knife (held by the bad guy) and hands, feet and a stick (held by the law abiding citizens).

This is the kind of world the anti's want, this is what they want for the USA. They want to make everyone defenseless against every criminal deprivation; like lambs to the slaughter.

Together, we can stop them, but it requires ever diligence and no compromise with evil. And just remember, when they say they don't want to ban your kind of gun, it's only a matter of time before they come for you, and by then there will be no-one to speak up for you.

There are no separate groups. There are no "hunters" or "shooters" or "shotgunners", there is only "Gun Owners". Think about it, with 80M plus gun owners in this nation, do you think the politicians would listen if 80M people stood together with one voice and said "No More!"?

I think they would.

So get involved, join a gun rights group, stand up for your rights, because no-one else is going to. Together, we can stop them and take back all of the rights the second amendment promises up.

UPDATE: Gun Debate Critic has also covered this story and I somehow overlooked it.

Typical...

Here's some follow-up from the last post. In this news story, the stalkers family had this to say:

"Ryan Lee Bergner was a "gentle" and "kind" man, and his family "can't even believe" he would break into a woman's house and try to hurt her, his sister-in-law said Wednesday night.

"It's just so shocking for such a gentle person to die in such a violent way," said Becky Bergner, who is married to Ryan Lee Bergner's brother.

"He did not go there that evening to hurt her, as far as the Ryan that we know.""

Pardon me while I throw-up.

A few paragraphs down:

"Officers found Bergner, 41, wearing black leather gloves, sprawled out in the bedroom."

Victim: "Wowee Mr. Bad Guy, what big gloves you have on!"

Bad Guy: "All the better to strangle you with my dear! Plus, I won't leave any nasty fingerprints in your home or on your dead body!"

If I had a dollar for every time the family of the bad guy goes on about what a kind and gently man he was, how he fed the orphans and sheltered stray animal, I'd be a rich guy.

*sigh*

Dial 911 and Die...redux

Thanks to Oleg Volk.

Dreaming the implausible dream...

Consider this editorial by Joe Klock, Sr. of the Coral Gables Gazette. I've tried to break it down into manageable chunks, but just when I thought he'd stopped with the $#!^, there was even more.

I'll comment only on parts of his editorial, if you'd like to read the whole thing click here.

"As written, B.O.R. #2. reads, "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."

Some hold that this only protects our right to have well-organized militias, while others read the same words as sanctioning the private possession of lethal weaponry.

What Madison really meant was interred with his bones, leaving interpretation to generations of English majors, history buffs, pacifists, gun-fanciers and, in their current session, the oracular whizzes of our Supreme Court."

He would have to pick the version with the most commas wouldn't he? Different versions of the second amendment exist with varying numbers of commas. With or without the commas it makes perfects sense when read in context and by studying other things the founders had to say about it.

"After extensive thought, exhaustive research and pleasurable study of "Eats, Shoots & Leaves," I have taken two firm positions on the issue: I will not speculate on what Founding Father Madison had in mind in 1789 or how he'd advise our Supremes in 2008.

Furthermore, I care not a rat's butt about that, although it might be interesting to know how he'd feel about private citizens owning AK-47s.

I do care that 30,000 Americans die annually as a result of guns in the hands of evil and/or irresponsible shooters."

Apparently you didn't do too much thought, exhaustive research and pleasurable study did you. Perhaps you'd have been better off researching the origins of the second amendment instead of a book of punctuation. Then again, since you don't care not a rats ass about the subject, you're just going to empty your gray and black water tanks on us in the form of this editorial.

Personally, I think Madison would have been fine with private ownership of Ak-47's by the unorganized militia.

Joe, would you care to back up your statistics from a non Brady or Joyce Foundation sponsored, or discredited study? I didn't think so.

"I also respect the rights of all people to defend themselves, their loved ones and their possessions against criminals, using firearms if need be.

Neither would I prevent millions of hunters from engaging in their chosen pastime, although such peculiar pursuits as shooting doves barely seem to qualify as sporting events.

Finally, I recognize that total prohibition of private gun ownership would be only a tad more popular and effective than the ill-fated banning of John Barleycorn in the Roaring (but seldom boring) 20's.

I submit, though, that those claiming the right to bear arms, either for fun or protection, assume concomitant obligations of responsibility and competence - not unlike those imposed on those who drive automobiles or perform heart transplants.

This question to those on both sides of the gun control controversy: Why not make training and licensure pre-qualifications for weapon ownership, with really heavy fines and jail sentences for those who don't comply?

No law-abiding and well-intentioned citizen should object to such a restriction, given its obvious benefit to society."

Oh my, where to start. First you respect the rights of individuals to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property with firearms. Second, you recognize hunters being able to pursue their sports whether you agree with them or not. Thirdly, you state (and I agree) that a total ban on firearms would be about as popular, and effective as prohibition was in the 1920's. Good on you for that, but then you had to flush it all away with your next statement. You state that you can't see how anyone would have an objection to treating gun ownership like driving a car. For someone who seemed to understand the rights of individuals earlier on, you prove that you really don't get it. I shouldn't be surprised.

Read the Bill of Rights Joe, I have. It's okay if you have to look them up online and read through it, I'll wait.

Done?

Okay, where in the Bill of Rights does it mention anything about driving a car, erm, horse and buggy? No? Okay, now what does the second one say? Okay, and no, it doesn't mean the National Guard or the government giving itself permission to form a militia (how stupid would that be). Now, how many times do you see "The People" and "The State" mentioned? Okay, now read the other nine (original BOR) and tell me whether or not it's clear on who has which right? Now why is the second amendment somehow different than the others? What's that? It says "Well Regulated?" Do yourself a favor and research the meaning of the phrase as it was used at the time for the correct context. Oh that's right, you really don't care about the "technical woo-woo's" as you put it.

Completely aside from this Joe, I and millions of other gun owners like me will never submit. Every gun confiscation in history was always preceded with registration. How do you think they knew where all the guns were? It sounds cliche, but "Legislation, Registration, Confiscation" has a lot more truth going for it than you'd imagine.

"This would counter the argument that if guns were banned entirely, only the criminals would be armed.

As to that lot of scoundrels, use of firearms in the commission of a violent crime could be raised to the level of a capital offense, with appropriate punishment. (Cruel and unusual, you say? Tell that to the victims and/or their families!)

Spare me, puh-leez, the legalese woo-woo and technical hair-splitting.

Simplistic though it may be, the remedy I suggest would save thousands of lives, make society safer and still allow private citizens to protect themselves, their loved ones, their hobbies and their worldly goods.

The doves are another matter, perhaps for another column when I really feel fearless."

"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!" *sigh* Okay, yes, it's true. Following your plan though, the government could decide to take them at anytime they want. As to more severe punishment for criminal misuse of a firearm. Before they start doing that, I think they should make murder, robbery, rape, etc... against the law first. Oh wait, murder is against the law already and many states have the death penalty. You'd think with that in mind there'd be no murders. Aren't criminals afraid of capitol punishment?

Also, regardless of what the Brady Bunch say, there are well over 20,000 gun laws already in existence with more being added all the time. It's a constant battle to make sure my rights aren't being infringed.

Simplistic? Nah, I'd never say that...I'm too polite to tell you that you're full of crap!

UPDATE: Robb over at Sharp as a Marble has an excellent post concerning the 30,000 firearm deaths a year the anti's like to crow about. Go read!

Sanity in Maine

Click here to read the whole thing.

'Has anyone ever wondered why people with guns who have kissed sanity good-bye never take out their uncontrollable rage on the nearest police station?

Nor do they drive off to the nearest Army base, shooting range or hunting club to vent their murderous frustration.

It should only take a moment's thought to understand why: Those places have people who have relatively easy access to weapons themselves.

It's one thing to be homicidal and suicidal, but it's quite another to consider that one's murderous intent could be brought to an untimely halt through the immediate application of superior firepower.

However, there are places that draw these people like magnets, and they, too, are easy to locate: They are the places where the possession of firearms is forbidden, and that fact is widely advertised.

Some of these places even go so far as to publicly display their vulnerability to mass murder through the posting of signs that say "No Guns Permitted" or "Gun-Free Zone."'

A little of this, and a little bit of that...

I'm feeling a lot better than I was a couple of weeks ago, although I'm still not as strong as I was. How exactly do I feel you ask? Here, I'll let Ozzy Osbourne tell you.

"Back on earth (you feel me)
Back on earth (reveal me)
Back on earth (still breathing)
Back on earth (reliving)"

I was well enough to go to the range today and took my SKS along with me. I put something in the neighborhood of 80-100 rounds downrange. It felt good to get back out on the range, even if it was finger numbingly cold. The first thing I did is remove the bolt and rough bore site the red dot scope at 25 yards, and once I was hitting well I moved it out to 50, and then 100 yards.

Okay, firstly, the red dot scope has a 4 MOA dot and no magnification (nothing wrong with that), which means that at 100 yards the dot covers a 4" circle. By the time I left I was placing the vast majority of the rounds (mil-surp) within that circle at 100 yards. I'll post a picture later when my camera battery recharges. Secondly, the SKS was never intended to be a sub-MOA rifle. It was made specifically to be just good enough to hit a man sized target in battle and that's it. Yes, I'll say it. The SKS was designed to kill people. That is it's function and there's nothing wrong with that. And at risk of people misunderstanding me, that's why I have it.

May I remind everyone of the Korean shop owners (look at the bottom of the Service & the Second Day sections respectively) who defended their homes and business's during the LA riots with the very same rifle and kept the murderous hordes at bay? And do I even have to bring up Katrina? After today's range session I know I can hit a man sized object 100 yards away from me with this rifle and there's comfort in that. There's nothing like fellow rioters falling all around you screaming to make you change your course of action. If they get closer there's always the 12 gauge loaded with 00 Buckshot, the 9mm and/or the .357 Magnum.

Don't tell me I'm paranoid. In light of recent events, a person would have to be an idiot to go unarmed anywhere in public. Yes, one armed citizen is all it takes to stop a psychotic bent on mass murder. The same people who think it's crazy to carry a weapon think it's perfectly reasonable to have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers in their houses. "What, are you expecting trouble?" they'll say, the obvious comeback being, "What, are you expecting a fire?"

Remember the Boy Scout Motto: "Be prepared."

Something that's eating at me a bit happened during my day at the range today. One of the RSO's (a very friendly individual) was talking to another shooter during a break in the shooting and I overheard them talking about gun shows. The RSO stated to the other that gun shows were attended by 10% legal gun owners, 10% law enforcement, and the other 80% were criminals looking to find a cheap gun. The other guy agreed and soon thereafter the "unlicensed dealer" straw man was brought up. They both seemed to think that Oregon had it right in requiring every gun sale be handled through an FFL and NICS. I interjected that in Washington, the WAC puts on the majority of gun shows and you can't buy a gun at a WAC show without being a member, and they do background checks on their members. I also pointed out that statistically, nationwide, less than .1% of crime guns come from gun shows. I never really did get a real response from the two of them. Turns out they're both employed in law enforcement. *sigh* I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out they both believed that something called an "Assault Weapon" really exists.

Anyway, I'm tired and my leg's starting to ache...and the kids need to eat something, so I'll sign off for now.

Later! :-)

From the ISRA

ISRA Action Alert:
**TOTAL COOK COUNTY GUN BAN CLEARS FIRST HURDLE**

Rabid gun-grabbers on the Cook County Board came one step closer last week
to instituting a total ban on firearm ownership in the county - except for
police and military personnel.

Introduced by Commissioner William Beavers, the so-called "Safe
Streets/Weapons Registration Ordinance" appears on the surface to be some
sort of gun registration scheme. However, closer examination reveals that
the only people who could comply with the registration requirements would
be Chicago residents who had previously registered their guns with the
city. Everyone else in Cook County would have to turn in their guns to the
police.

The ordinance would certainly ban all handguns as the ordinance disallows
registration of handguns that do not have a "chamber load"
indicator. Few, if any, handguns could comply with this requirement, so
they would have to be surrendered to the police.

The full text of Beavers' proposed ordinance may be found here:
<http://www.isra.http://wwhttp://www.isra.http://www.isra.http://www.ihttp>
To learn more about William Beavers, click this link:

<http://www.co.http://www.http://www.htt>

William Beavers is an enemy to our Constitution and an enemy to all
freedom-loving people of the United States. Call him at (312) 603-2065 and
also call his other office at (773) 731-1515 and tell them exactly what
you think of Beavers and his plan to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Another gun-hater on the Cook County Board is Larry Suffredin. Suffredin
has fielded a proposed ordinance that would shut down all gun shops in the
county.
You may read about that ordinance by clicking here:
<http://www.isra.http://wwhttp://www.isra.http://wwwhttp://www.>

Larry Suffredin is an enemy to our Constitution and an enemy to all
freedom-loving people of the United States. For full information on Larry
Suffredin, click this link:
<http://www.co.http://www.http://www.htt>
Call Suffredin at 847-864-1209 and 312-603-6383 and tell them exactly
what you think of Larry Suffredin's plan to punish law-abiding gun owners.

Even if you don't live in Cook County, or even if you don't live in
Illinois for that matter, call anyway. Freedom is at stake here.

In addition to calling these gun-hating stooges, please do the
following:

1. Post this alert to any and all Internet bulletin boards of which you
are a member.

2. Send this alert to all your gun owning friends and ask them to call
Beavers and Suffredin too!

Remember - preservation of our 2nd Amendment rights is a cultural
imperative. Gun control is a disease; you are the cure!

Only 5 days left!

Don't forget, Sarah Brady cries with each box of ammo sold!

Another One Down!

Following the lead of Barrett (also), STI has now decided to stop selling anything to the state of California. As many of you already know, California recently brought out their "Microstamping" law. The following is from Dave Skinner, STI's Commander-In-Chief.

On the "flip side" of states� laws, we have California! As you know, we let all of our DOJ listings lapse several years ago. We also stopped selling to CA law enforcement agencies in the same time frame. We did, however, continue selling to individual officers, who could get their agency to approve, for (IPSC, IDPA, etc.) sporting purposes. Now we have more even MORE onerous restrictions on the general populace? No more! We�re sorry! We�re done! No guns! Nobody! �Nuff said!

Thanks to Larry Correia for the tip.

Oregon Teacher Loses Right to Defend Herself

Click here for PDF of the ruling.

--------

Judge rules teacher cannot bring gun to school

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - An English teacher in Southern Oregon has no right to take her semiautomatic handgun onto school grounds, a judge said Friday in a ruling that may clarify a possible conflict between school policy and state law on concealed weapons.

Shirley Katz claimed she had a right to carry a handgun, as a defense against intruders or her former husband, despite Medford School District policy against teachers carrying weapons.

Her attorney, James Leuenberger, argued that only the Legislature, not local governments, can regulate firearms under state law.

But Jackson County Circuit Judge G. Philip Arnold ruled Friday that an ordinance is different from a school district employment policy for its teachers.

"The district has the right to enforce its policy," Arnold wrote to conclude his nine-page ruling.

State law does not prohibit carrying a gun in school if the owner has a concealed weapon permit issued by a county sheriff.

But the Medford School District has a policy that prohibits employees from carrying firearms. Teachers or staff could face disciplinary action or be fired for violating the policy.

Tim Gerking, the school district's lawyer, welcomed the ruling.

"Allowing staff to carry weapons into school buildings wouldn't enhance safety, it would only make it worse," Gerking said. "We'd have a completely new risk of accidental injuries as a result of these weapons."

Leuenberger said he planned to appeal.

"I think the judge obviously is wrong," Leuenberger said. "To make a big difference between a policy and an ordinance makes no sense. This is just an antigun decision."

Katz has said she obtained the Glock 9mm handgun - favored by many police departments - to protect herself against alleged threats from her ex-husband during their divorce in 2004. The ex-husband has denied the allegations, but a judge granted a restraining order against him that since has expired.

Arnold noted in his ruling that Katz's "personal problems are not a factor in deciding this case" and that, "likewise, the wisdom of the district's policy is not a factor ... the issue before this court is whether or not the state statute prohibits the district from having its policy ... ."

Most Oregon school districts have policies against guns on school grounds.

A spokeswoman for state school Superintendent Susan Castillo said Oregon Department of Education officials had not seen the ruling and could not comment.

Quote of the Day

Thanks to SondraK:

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

-James Madison

So, anti's, do you want to have another debate over the meaning of "A well-regulated militia"?

Armed Victim Shoots Home Invading Criminal

The AWB, Then and Now

Shamelessly stolen from Gun Debate Critic:

All Trick, no Treat

I got another email from the Brady Bunch today, one day late... In this email they tell me to support S. 1237/H.R. 2074, or "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007" which basically allows the Attorney General to deny someone the right to buy a firearm without due process. Currently, you have to be convicted of an actual crime for your second amendment rights to be stripped from you.

Look, I'm not for terrorists getting access to guns and explosives, but this bill, if passed, will sidestep the Bill of Rights and allow anyone, added to this list, rightly or wrongly, to be denied their Constitutional rights without due process of law. This violates the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, which read:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

and

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Brady Bunch would be promulgating a law that violates the Constitution of The United States, but it still takes me back a little. I wonder how they would feel if the law was aimed at the first amendment instead? Something tells me they would be screaming to high heaven.

Not only is this dangerous, but people not on this list are already being affected by it. Take the case of the seven year old boy who was denied entry on a plane multiple times because his name just happened to be the same as a Pakistani man who had been deported. While I think he could have worn a better shirt...it still illustrates the fact of how this law could be misused, even by coincidence. Now imagine if certain people, classified as undesirables by the AG, with no oversight and answering to no one, were to be put on this list. How would they get off? How much would it cost? How would they even know until they were denied their second amendment rights for no reason?

This quote, attributed to Benjamin Franklin says it best:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Write your elected representatives and tell them not to support S. 1237/H.R. 2074. These bills are just another incremental step toward "Legislation, Registration, Confiscation" and need to be stopped, now.

Fred Thompson on the UN

Here we have Senator Fred Thompson giving his views on the UN's attempt to take guns from law abiding US citizens.

Fred Thompson for President!

"Last year, the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights declared that international human rights law requires all nations to adopt strict gun control laws. These "minimum" provisions are much more restrictive than any of those on the books anywhere in the U.S. and would almost certainly violate the Second Amendment of our Constitution.

Besides concluding that all nations are obligated under international human rights law to control the small arms and light weapons to which its civilian population has access, the UN report remarkably denied the existence of any human right to self-defense, evidently overlooking the work of Hugo Grotius, the 17th century scholar credited as the founder of international law, who wrote, "It is to be observed that [the] Right of Self-Defence, arises directly and immediately from the Care of our own Preservation, which Nature recommends to every one. . . ," and that this right is so primary, that it cannot be denied on the basis that it is not "expressly set forth."

There is another disturbing aspect to this call for international global gun control. Throughout modern history, the forced disarmament of people by its government has often been accompanied or followed by that government's commission of often massive human rights abuses. In fact, no genocide in the 20th century occurred when the victim population still possessed small arms, legally or illegally, with which to defend themselves.

So now the UN wants to disarm civilians? Where was the UN when the massacres in Rwanda occurred? What did the UN do to protect the victims of ethnic massacres in Bosnia? Disarming civilians under the guise of international human rights law will only lead to more such genocides by ensuring that civilians can never defend themselves! It would be funny if it weren't so perverse.

Thankfully, the Framers of our Constitution recognized this potential peril to our liberty, and enshrined in our Second Amendment the more basic right of self-defense. The U.N. can say what it likes about other countries' citizens' possession of small arms being a violation of human rights law, but so long as the United States is a sovereign nation governed by its Constitution, its words will have no effect here. And I am glad for it."

Thanks to The Shooting Wire.
Robb at Sharp as a Marble also has the story.

"The NRA wants to arm even blind people and..."

I can just hear the anti's heads exploding over this...



Good on him! Some idiot crook decides that he's an easy mark because of his disability and gets more than he bargained for. I like the Police's response to this too. I just hope they give him his gun back soon, seeing as how CNN announced to the world that he's unarmed now.

How much do you want to bet he had the same bullets in the gun since he got it? I'm also betting it was probably a revolver.