NRA News: Chicago Students Indoctrinated Against NRA
Cam Edwards talks to Kyle Olson from EAGnews.org
CSM: Words Not Guns
There is an old saying that the pen is mightier than the sword, and this may be true but when it comes to defending one’s home a fountain pen is and go very far. This week the Christian Science Monitor questions stand your ground laws, and veteran newsman Walter Rodgers writes:
I’ve had pistols held to my head from Bosnia to Beirut. Your best self-defense is your tongue. Those who put their faith in guns will ultimately be outgunned.
He adds:
Rarely does one find oneself in a confrontation that can’t be talked out of, and where having a gun would have made things safer.
He must have quite the silver tongue, because as some tragic cases show sometimes you can’t talk your way out of a violent situation. Unfortunately, the world – including parts of the United States – is becoming a dangerous place. This does not defend the actions of George Zimmerman, but rather is mentioned note that there are times when words simply won’t suffice.
AWR Hawkins: Harvard Professor Attacks Second Amendment
Last week conservative writer AWR Hawkins offered an excellent rebuttal to Harvard professor Jill Lepore’s article in The New Yorker. He wrote:
Harvard professor Jill Lepore’s latest article in The New Yorker is one of the most convoluted, revisionist, anti-gun “historical” pieces I’ve ever read. A mixture of emotional appeals to gun control and equally emotional attacks on guns, combined with an agenda-driven, twisted history of the Second Amendment, her article is literally as difficult to read as one of Joe Biden’s speeches is to follow.
And also noted:
To read this gibberish is to understand perfectly how Harvard produced a president like Barack Obama.
Huff and Pulls Tell How to “Control” the Debate
Do anti-gun zealots want a fair debate? In a word: no. Writing for the Huffington Post last week Margie Omero, Democratic pollster and president of Momentum Analysis instead offered a way to “control” the debate. In a piece titled, “‘Controling’ the Gun Debate: An Open Letter to All Pollsters,” she writes:
These days, the gun debate is not about whether one has the right to own a gun, but about how to balance those existing rights against the need to prevent gun violence.
This is not accurate, nor is it a fair way to look at the issue. The very notion that the right to own a gun somehow waits to gun violence shows why there can be no middle ground on this issue.
She adds:
Gun “Control” is an anachronism. Look at the exact wording of the Pew question: “What do you think is more important — to protect the right of Americans to own guns, or to control gun ownership?” This question uses the language of the gun lobby (rights), not the language of those working for stronger gun laws (safety). And it pits a right versus simply “control” for its own sake.
I don’t assume nefarious motives on Pew’s part. When this question was first written, “control” was indeed part of the gun debate vernacular. But it is no longer. Using the word “control” is a poor description of that side’s position. (While the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was once called Handgun Control, Inc., the group hasn’t had` “control” in its name in over ten years.)
Here this is completely misleading. Anti-gun groups look for gun control as an answer, and removing the word control only confuses the issue. This is an issue of the right to own a gun versus those would like to control said right.
Handgun Control changed its name in an attempt to seem as if it was not so anti-gun, but the issue remains. As with other anti-gun groups, the agenda is to place greater restrictions, add new laws, and make it difficult to legally own a fire. The problem again is that these laws, restrictions and other methods of gun control will only affect the law-abiding.
Samuel L. Jackson and Guns
One of the most disturbing aspects of the Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida is how it is being used by anti-gun zealots as a rallying cry for gun control. It has gotten mainstream media attention, and has polarized much of the country. However, actor Samuel L. Jackson makes an interesting point.
Numerous media sites this week noted that the actor does not believe in the “stand your ground” law, and has criticized how George Zimmerman acted when he shot Martin. We believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, even on this matter.
What is notable however is that Jackson continues to back gun ownership. He was even quoted as saying, “Hell yeah. I’m not going to be the one without the gun when the people who have guns show up.”
Huff and Puff: NRA Becomes Toxic When Exposed to Light
Writing for the Huffington Post, Daniel Gross, President, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence suggested this week “NRA Becomes Toxic When Exposed to Light.”
We see he wasted no time firing a salvo at the NRA. Gross writes:
In the weeks since George Zimmerman’s killing of Trayvon Martin, corporate America has been force fed a crash survey of public opinion on gun policy. Some of America’s most popular –and message-savvy — companies announced their swift verdict when they, and then ALEC, withdrew support for the National Rifle Association’s paranoid, violent agenda.
He adds:
You see, the NRA and its political minions like to work in the shadows. They cannot credibly explain to voters why they support loopholes that allow criminals to buy guns without background checks, or allow terrorists to buy all the AK-47s they desire. Secrecy and cynicism are their greatest allies.
This is a shameful argument. The NRA is not trying to allow criminals to buy guns without background checks or aid terrorists in any way. This of noxious notion that the NRA supports terrorists is both shameful and factually inaccurate.
For the record the NRA has merely stated that those on a terrorist watch list should not be prevented from exercising their Second Amendment rights. I imagine if someone were stripped of their First Amendment rights for being on the no-fly list, the ACLU and other civil rights groups would be up in arms. The truth is that this is merely as it seems, a watchlist, and those on it have not been charged or arrested for crime.
It seems that Gross and his ilk would strip away the constitutional rights of Americans simply because there is a chance, no matter how slim, that they might be criminals.
NRA News: The Fallacy of Gun Control Laws
Cam Edwards talks to Dr. Kyle Scott from Duke University about his recent article (http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/the-fallacy-of-gun-control-laws/)
Robert Rector Aims at Ted Nugent
Writing for the Pasadena Star – News, Robert Rector fires a salvo at Ted Nugent. Along the way he made a number of questionable statements:
Nugent doesn’t just bear arms. He carries more weaponry than the National Guard.
Of course we assume Rector is joking, but does it matter if this statement is even true? Time and time again, anti-gun types like to question how many firearms in individual mail. This is done despite the fact that the Second Amendment places no restrictions.
Rector added:
For the record, Obama has barely mentioned gun control in his four years in office. In fact, his supporters are critical of him for not taking a stronger anti-gun stance.
This has been widely stated, but is not entirely accurate. The president did call a White House summit to address “reasonable gun control,” and told Sarah Brady that he was working on gun control but “under the radar.”
Rector further noted:
He has said that he supports the Second Amendment but also backs local gun control ordinances such as the one that exists – for good reason – in Washington, D.C.
Why is a local gun-control ordinance good? This is something Rector doesn’t explain. These ordinances only affect the law-abiding. This is something anti-gun types fail to understand, and why anti-gun control can be seen as an assault on the Second Amendment.
Larry Elder says: Gun control opponents are wise to fear Obama
Writing for the Los Angeles daily news last week, columnist Larry Elder noted, “Gun control opponents are wise to fear Obama.” Elder noted:
If voters give Obama four more years, he will likely have two or more Supreme Court vacancies. One or two more left-wing justices, like Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
And yet so many in the mainstream media like to suggest that Obama has done nothing to promote gun control. We say it’s probably just biding his time, and waiting for the right opportunity.
Valley Star Calls for Gun Control
This past weekend The Valley Star, a college paper of Los Angeles Valley College, suggested “Continued Lack of Gun Control Means No End to Tragic Campus Shootings.”
While we agree everyone should have a right to their own opinion, we note that this editorial offers a flawed argument. The writer notes:
The Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, and Americans have taken full advantage of this right. There are currently around 270 million guns in America, nearly one for every person in this country. That is despite the fact that guns are created for only one purpose: to kill.
This is a simplistic view, as it is not true that guns are created for only killing. It disregards the fact that most law-abiding gun owners never fire there gun in anger.
The writer adds:
This is a violent country, but it doesn’t have to be. Fewer people should have guns, and there should be fewer guns available. Laws making it easier for people to obtain guns are the cause and not the solution to the problem of gun violence. And until people realize this, no one will be truly safe.
This is also a simplistic view, and an extremely idealistic view of America, and ignores the fact that laws that would make it harder to obtain guns will only affect the law-abiding. By arguing that no one will be truly safe without gun control assumes that criminals will stop being criminals, and heed the gun control laws. Until criminals stop being criminals, and terrorists stop being terrorists, and bad people stop doing bad things, no one will be truly safe.
