Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

From Joseph Farah:

How do you know the left is firmly in charge of the political and cultural establishment in America?

Because now they want to ban guns.

As a former leftist revolutionary during my misguided youth, I recall with crystal clarity when the radical left of the 1960s brazenly bore arms in public, boasted about firearms training, stockpiled arms and ammo and even engaged in armed violence against police.

The Black Panther Party, originally, by the way, the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, is a case in point. The organization, led by Bobby Seale and Huey Newton, were often referred to in the ’60s as “the vanguard of the revolution.”

They were known for ambushing police. Newton himself, after being freed from prison for the killing of Oakland police officer John Frey, boasted of murdering him. James Forman, Black Panther Party “minister of foreign affairs,” called for blowing up police stations, killing Southern governors and mayors and murdering 500 cops. They took full advantage of the Second Amendment and California laws that permitted the carrying of loaded rifles and shotguns in public, as long as they were not concealed or pointed at anyone. In May 1967, the Panthers literally invaded, fully armed, the State Assembly of the California Legislature. Later they organized an armed march on the state Capitol when lawmakers introduced legislation banning the carrying of loaded weapons in public.

All of this made them the heroes of the left. So-called “civil rights attorneys” like Charles Garry and William Kunstler and the American Civil Liberties Union defended them for their brazen calls for armed struggle, armed attacks and armed intimidation tactics.

But that was then, and this is now.

[ … ]

The only difference between now and then is who is running things.

[ … ]

The New Left, as it was known back then, worshipped firearms.

The new, new left does, too – as long as it maintains a monopoly on them and state power.

Yes, the left still loves guns.  There is no other reason for the fawning acceptance of the vulgar SWAT raid tactics in which innocent men like Mr. Eurie Stamps get shot and killed.  These tactics are repeated all across America every day.

The left just doesn’t love guns in the wrong hands, and anyone who isn’t an agent of the state is the wrong hands.  Listen to Representative Jim Himes (D – CT) tell you why high capacity magazines are still necessary in government hands.

There is absolutely no justification for weapons that were made for the explicit purpose of killing lots of people quickly to be in the hands of civilians.

Let that wash over you again.  “Killing lots of people quickly” and “civilian hands.”  The two don’t go together.

Leftists are by nature not liberals, no matter what label they have adopted.  Scratch a liberal, and find a Fascist.

Loyal reader Rich Buckley sends this video along.

To LEOs and N.G., one less than memorable point, and one point that you’d better always remember.  First, pause the video at 42 seconds.  The idiot holding the forend grip like that looks like a girl.  Listen girly-man, go watch some “Art Of The Tactical Carbine” videos by Travis Haley.  You’ll thank me later.

Second point – and like I said, always remember I said this.  If you ever try to confiscate my weapons like that for any reason under the sun, you’ll get shot, without delay, many times.  I just wanted to make sure that we were on the same page of the hymnal.  There.  I feel that we understand each other now.

David Codrea:

Because that’s true, and it is, you know, looking at quick fix kneejerk ‘solutions’ such as changing state and federal information loop protocols on recorded mental health incidents may not produce any appreciable public safety improvements, and may in fact, endanger not only rights, but people disabled by ‘law’ who have been denied full due process.

Um, yes.  Of course a system like this is highly vulnerable to abuse and negligence.  It’s the government.  My God.  When is the last time you witnessed a government program work the way it should?  Besides, mental health professionals will tell you that their science isn’t as accurate as you think it is and isn’t amenable to such neat categories, that they cannot really predict with any confidence who will become violent, that their science won’t sustain such a burden, that such reporting will intefere with the doctor-patient relationship, and that they don’t want that kind of legal and regulatory pressure on their profession.  They have already told you so.  It’s like asking your Volkswagen Beetle to hit the curves at Daytona International Speedway and race with the big boys.  Man is too complex, and “doctors” don’t know as much about his psyche as this system would demand.  Because, you know, it’s his psyche … his soul … his spirit.  It’s not his big toe.

Finish reading Codrea’s piece at Examiner.  Mental health checks are not the answer to gun violence.  Move on to the real solutions, like abolishing gun free zones as an intrusion on our God-given right of self defense.

Kurt Hofmann has a great piece up at Examiner on foreigners respecting the Second Amendment more than some Americans.

It’s well worth the time.  As you read it, remember that your company can define who you are, characterize you, and change you.  “Bad company corrupts good morals,” 1 Corinthians 15:33.  And remember that many of those who currently rule us were trained by Marxists.

Also remember this.  I have called their designs for gun control evil, a function and product of wicked governments.  Take note that communist China has criticized our Second Amendment and encouraged gun control, as well the United Nations.  Finally, their ideas come mainly from Nazi Germany, where Hitler had designs for gun control long before our current administration.  That’s who this administration can call company.

What does all of this have to do with Kurt’s article?  Just that those who have seen the final manifestations of evil in a society are the very ones who warn us about it and encourage the nurturing of freedom in America.

The current focus by the politicians in their quest for social and human factors solutions to gun violence appears to be two-fold.  First, there is a call for universal background checks.  Even the NRA has indicated potential approval of this approach (while there is still vacillation and equivocation within the ranks of the NRA on this issue).  While this is tempting, it won’t solve any problems, and instead it will lead to a national gun registry.

But if there is vacillation on the issue of universal background checks, there appears to be growing consistency in the call for more intrusive and comprehensive mental health checks for firearms ownership.  Progressive and conservative alike, from politician to random interviewee on the street, casting aspersions on mentally troubled people and pointing to mental health screenings as the problem and solution, respectively, is the one area of agreement.

Walter Russell Mead weighs in in the affirmative on this problem – solution coupling:

Love it or loathe it, legislative gun control is unlikely to have much impact on violence American style. But there is another door to progress: taking care of America’s mentally ill. The good people at Mother Jones recently compiled a study, revealing that of the 62 mass shootings since 1982, 38 were carried out by a person suffering from mental illness (mostly men). Most had displayed signs of paranoia, depression, and other issues with mental health well before reaching for a weapon.

While most of the gun violence in America is committed by the clinically sane, the most horrific massacres are often the work of deranged people whose problems had come to the attention of family, neighbors or work associates.

I have shared before that I have a concealed handgun permit in my county, and in order to get permitted like this, one of the requirements is to sign over authority to examine your medical records to the county Sheriff.  Any admissions to one of five or six regional hospitals for mental health or substance abuse issues would have been reason to have denied my permit.  But I have often wondered, what if I had a recorded admission for some matter in one of the above two categories?  What would that have proven?  Little to nothing, as we will see.

What about the logical contraposition?  I am in a fitness for duty program because I have unescorted access to nuclear power plants.  Does that make me mentally stable?  How about law enforcement officers, since they are in a similar kind of program?  Anecdotal cases demonstrate problems.

Reports of Metro Police Lt. Hans Walters underscore the mental health component of the current gun control debate. Walters shot and killed his wife, a former police officer, and his son and then set fire to their Boulder City home before taking his own life.

Most would agree police departments conduct exhaustive background checks, screening tests, training and safety procedures before authorizing officers to carry and deploy a number of firearms. Yet a former colleague comments to the Las Vegas Review-Journal that Walters “didn’t seem out of the ordinary at all,” adding that “Cops are pretty intuitive. They can tell when something’s wrong with someone. He seemed totally fine.”

Beyond the anecdotal level, there are problems with diagnosis and with the very nature of psychology.  One clinician weighs in this way.

Clinicians treating patients hear their fears, anger, sadness, fantasies and hopes, in a protected space of privacy and confidentiality, which is guaranteed by federal and state laws. Mental health professionals are legally obligated to break this confidentiality when a patient “threatens violence to self or others.” But clinicians rarely report unless the threat is immediate, clear and overt.

Mental health professionals understand that, despite our intimate knowledge of the thoughts of our patients, we are not very good at predicting what people will do. Our knowledge is always incomplete and conditional, and we do not have the methods to objectively predict future behavior. Tendencies, yes; specific actions, no. To think that we can read a person’s brain the way a scanner in airport security is used to detect weapons is a gross misunderstanding of psychological science, and very far from the nuanced but uncertain grasp clinicians have on patients’ state of mind.

What about diagnoses?

If mental health professionals were required to report severe mental illness (such as paranoid schizophrenia) to state authorities, it would have an immediate chilling effect on the willingness of people to disclose sensitive information, and would discourage many people from seeking treatment. What about depression, bipolar disorder, substance abuse or post-traumatic stress disorder, along with other types of mental illness that have some link to self-harm and impulsive action? The scope of disclosure that the government could legally compel might end up very wide, without any real gain in predictive accuracy.

Diagnosis is an inexact and constantly evolving effort, and it is contentious within the profession. To use a diagnosis as the basis of reporting the possibility of violence to the authorities would make the effort of accurate evaluation much more fraught. And what of the families and friends of the mentally ill? Should their weapons purchases be restricted as well? A little reflection shows how unworkable in practice any screening by diagnosis would be.

And more clinicians weigh in similarly:

“We’re not likely to catch very many potentially violent people” with laws like the one in New York, says Barry Rosenfeld, a professor of psychology at Fordham University in The Bronx….

A study of experienced psychiatrists at a major urban psychiatric facility found that they were wrong about which patients would become violent about 30 percent of the time.

That’s a much higher error rate than with most medical tests, says Alan Teo, a psychiatrist at the University of Michigan and an author of the study.

One reason even experienced psychiatrists are often wrong is that there are only a few clear signs that a person with a mental illness is likely to act violently, says Steven Hoge, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University. These include a history of violence and a current threat to commit violence….

The next problem is that even if the science was capable of sustaining the load that we want to place it under, it still wouldn’t have the desired effect:

Perhaps most important, although people with serious mental illness have committed a large percentage of high-profile crimes, the mentally ill represent a very small percentage of the perpetrators of violent crime overall. Researchers estimate that if mental illness could be eliminated as a factor in violent crime, the overall rate would be reduced by only 4 percent. That means 96 percent of violent crimes—defined by the FBI as murders, robberies, rapes, and aggravated assaults—are committed by people without any mental-health problems at all. Solutions that focus on reducing crimes by the mentally ill will make only a small dent in the nation’s rate of gun-related murders, ranging from mass killings to shootings that claim a single victim.  It’s not just that the mentally ill represent a minority of the country’s population; it’s also that the overlap between mental illness and violent behavior is poor.

Finally, it isn’t just anecdotal evidence that calls into question the whole notion that mental health professionals can bear the weight of societal violence, or even the warnings of mental health professionals themselves.  Evidence doesn’t substantiate the current emphasis on mental health as the answer.

President Obama has called for stricter federal gun laws to combat recent shooting rampages, but a review of recent state laws by The Washington Times shows no discernible correlation between stricter rules and lower gun-crime rates in the states.

States that ranked high in terms of making records available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System also tended to have tighter gun laws — but their gun-crime rates ranged widely. The same was true for states that ranked poorly on disclosure and were deemed to have much less stringent gun-possession laws.

For example, New York, even before it approved the strictest gun-control measures in the country last week, was ranked fourth among the states in strength of gun laws by the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, but was also in the top 10 in firearm homicide rates in 2011, according to the FBI.

Meanwhile, North Dakota was near the bottom in its firearm homicide, firearm robbery and firearm assault rates, but also had some of the loosest gun laws and worst compliance with turning over mental health records to the background check system.

[ … ]

The Times analysis looked at the Brady Campaign’s rankings for strength of each state’s gun laws and at Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ rankings for how states perform in disclosing mental health data to the background check system. That information was then matched against the FBI’s 2011 gun-crime rankings for homicides, robberies and assaults.

The results showed no correlation among the strength of laws and disclosure and the crime rates.

For example, Maryland and New Jersey — both of them populous states with large metropolitan areas — have tight gun laws but poor mental health disclosure. But New Jersey’s gun-crime rate was in the middle of the pack, while Maryland ranked sixth-highest in homicides involving guns and second-highest in robberies with guns.

Delaware and Virginia, which both ranked high in mental health disclosure and ranked 18th and 19th in the Brady tally of tough gun laws, also had divergent crime rates.

Delaware ranked among the top 10 in number of gun robberies and gun assaults, while Virginia was in the middle of the pack on its measures.

My own view is somewhat more pedestrian and pragmatic.  New programs to empower the government rarely avoid abuse, and man’s evil propensities always tend towards totalitarianism and excessive control.  The innocent who get swept up in the mental health screenings and refused means of self defense will be considered the price to pay for government control.  With the right administration, simply wanting means of self defense will be justifiable cause for denying such.

With so little good that can come from this emphasis, coupled with such a large chance for abuse, mental health isn’t the answer that the politicians tout it to be.  As I have previously noted, the common element in the high profile gun violence cases (theater, schools, churches and malls) is that they’re all gun free zones.  Glenn Reynolds points out that this causes a false sense of security.  “Policies making areas “gun free” provide a sense of safety to those who engage in magical thinking, but in practice, of course, killers aren’t stopped by gun-free zones. As always, it’s the honest people — the very ones you want to be armed — who tend to obey the law.”

This is, as it were, the low hanging fruit.  Tackle the easy things and leave the questionable ones behind.

Prior Featured:

What To Expect On Gun Control In The Coming Months

The War To Disarm America

Christians, The Second Amendment And The Duty Of Self Defense

Do We Have A Constitutional Right To Own An AR?

U.N. Arms Treaty: Dreams Of International Gun Control

From Joseph Farah:

Are private firearms really necessary in society run by representative government?

After all, the police are there to protect us from criminals. And the politicians serve the interests of the people.

Right.

A small-scale example of how so-called “representative government” and the rule of law broke down took place in 1946 at what became known as “The Battle of Athens.”

For a decade before World War II and afterward, a corrupt political machine ran the town. But veterans returning from the war didn’t like what they found in their hometown. So they fielded opposition candidates for sheriff and state senate.

But the machine politicians seized the ballot boxes to ensure they would not be ousted by a popular political vote.

The vets grabbed what today would be called “assault weapons” – you know, the kind that shoot one round at a time while another round enters the chamber, just like 90 percent of today’s firearms.

They surrounded the town jail where the ballot boxes were being secured. When the machine politicians refused to turn over the ballot boxes, the veterans blew up the jail and took possession of the ballots.

Not surprisingly, they found the challengers had won the election fair and square.

Right here in the good old USA, firearms proved necessary in toppling a local tyranny in McMinn, Tenn., just 67 years ago.

That’s the real reason the Founding Fathers enshrined in the Bill of Rights a guarantee of the unalienable right to bear arms. It wasn’t about hunting. It wasn’t just about defending one’s life, liberty and property from run-of-the-mill criminals. It was also, first and foremost, a guarantee against liberty being hijacked by criminal government.

There isn’t anything wrong with pointing out the usefulness of firearms for hunting, for self defense and for the shooting sports.  I do it all the time.  But it’s necessary from time to time to point out that the Congressional and/or Department of Justice (ATF) “sporting purposes test” is an unconstitutional fabrication of men who want to forget that they have a propensity to evil totalitarianism, and need the ubiquitous threat of armed resistance from those whom they rule.

I had previously said “Universal background checks have nothing whatsoever to do with keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals, or a reduction in violence of any sort.  The system, if set up, is a predecessor and necessary prerequisite to a national gun registry.”

Feinstein’s proposals:

The bill will exempt firearms used for hunting and will grandfather in guns and magazines owned before the law’s potential enactment. However, the grandfathered weapons will be logged in a national registry.

A national gun registry – it’s one of the touchstones of success for the statists.  And universal background checks and a national gun registry go together like a hand in a glove.  When they make laws they are looking long term.  In fact, take note of one part of her legislation.

The legislation being pushed by Feinstein — who has long history of calling for gun bans — would prohibit the sale, transfer, importation and manufacture of certain firearms.

Neocon Charles Krauthammer (no friend to the second amendment) theorized the approach for them.

It is simply crazy for a country as modern, industrial, advanced and now crowded as the United States to carry on its frontier infatuation with guns. Yes, we are a young country but the frontier has been closed for 100 years.

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically.

It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.

Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic – purely symbolic – move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. Its purpose is to spark debate, highlight the issue, make the case that the arms race between criminals and citizens is as dangerous as it is pointless.

De-escalation begins with a change in mentality. And that change in mentality starts with the symbolic yielding of certain types of weapons. The real steps, like the banning of handguns, will never occur unless this one is taken first, and even then not for decades.

What needs to happen before this change in mentality can occur? What must occur first – and this is where liberals are fighting the gun control issue from the wrong end – is a decrease in crime. So long as crime is ubiquitous, so long as Americans cannot entrust their personal safety to the authorities, they will never agree to disarm. There will be no gun control before there is real crime control.

Universal background checks and assault weapon bans are mere window dressing.  The goal is to desensitize the public and cause this to occur over one or two generations.  You can keep the rifle you just purchased.  But you must register it with the federal government and you cannot bequeath it to your children or grandchildren.  Thus do they wish to accomplish confiscation by means other than sending SWAT teams into your home.  The question is, will you let them?

We previously discussed Sheriffs making moral, rather than self-preserving, decisions concerning the recent threats of unconstitutional gun controls by the federal government.  Sheriff Peyman is an example for others to follow, as are many other Sheriffs.  In Arizona:

From Oregon to Mississippi, Sheriffs are going on record saying “don’t tread on our people.”  Of particular note is this letter from the Utah Sheriff’s association.

We respect the office of the President of the United States of America.  But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the constitution.  No federal official will be permitted to descend upon constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights – in particular Amendment II – has given to them.  We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.”

This is a powerful note from honorable men, the only problem to my thinking being that the constitution didn’t give me the rights enumerated therein.  God did, and the founders recognized and codified them.

There are also legislators who have submited bills within their respective states making it a crime to enforce [upcoming] federal gun control.  The most recent example is in Arizona.

With the threat of new federal gun control laws and regulations looming, a state legislator wants to provide legal cover for Arizonans who do not want to obey them – and penalize federal officials who try to enforce them.

The proposal by Rep. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, makes it illegal for any public servant to enforce “any act, law, statute, rule or regulation” of the federal government relating to personal firearms or accessories within the boundaries of Arizona. It defines public servants to include not just state and local employees but also legislators, judges, jurors, witnesses and consultants who perform government functions.

Well enough.  But then the equivocation begins.

Smith conceded in a conflict between federal and state laws, the federal is likely to prevail. Where he said his measure may be more effective is on any action the president takes on his own.

Obama announced he is issuing executive orders dealing with background checks, doing studies on gun violence and taking steps toward what could be new safety standards for weapons. Smith said in those cases, were the president is acting on his own with no specific law backing his position, a state law would have more effect.

No, no, no.  Listen to me, boys and girls.  The legislators needs to reach a moral decision point just like the Sheriffs have.  This isn’t a game, and the Sheriffs have said that they will lay down their very lives.  Don’t pass laws that you aren’t willing to enforce by the power of the state police and national guard if necessary.  If you don’t want to put DHS agents in the state penitentiary, then don’t waste your time.  You will leave yourselves with no moral authority whatsoever with the federal government or your own constituency.  You will look like cowards, and maybe you are.  Leave the moral tests to the real men and stay out of the way.  Courtroom brinksmanship is for the faint of heart.

In the mean time, Sheriffs in North Carolina have some soul searching to do in light of the leadership shown around the country by other Sheriffs.

Hundreds of people met Wednesday evening to talk passionately about the Second Amendment and their rights to bear arms.

Three local sheriffs, including Wake County’s Donnie Harrison, took part in the minutemen’s discussions in Zebulon. The meeting came just hours after President Obama unveiled his gun control plans.

A boiling point in the meeting came about midway through. When dozens inside and dozens more outside of the Fargo Cattle Company Steakhouse bristled about a possibility that the federal government could violate their Second Amendment rights.

“I don’t think that was answered correctly, or really answered at all,” said Wake County resident Jamie Miller.

“What we didn’t hear is that it doesn’t matter what they say, we’re not going to come and get your guns,” said Wayne County resident Adam Drissel.

What those in attendance heard repeatedly from Sheriffs Jerry Jones, Carey Winders and Donnie Harrison, respectively from Franklin, Wayne and Wake counties, was very similar.

“I’ll quit first, but nobody’s going to take your guns,” said Harrison.

“I don’t see any sheriff going house to house taking weapons,” said Winders. “Folks, there’s more people here than I got deputies. I’m going to tell you that.”

[ … ]

Each sheriff pledged to uphold the U.S. Constitution, but stopped short of addressing a hypothetical scenario. Instead, they urged the gun advocates to take their passions to lawmakers.

Take note of the reasoning: ” … there’s more people here than I got deputies.”  This is entirely a pragmatic demurral.  It sounds as if some of the Sheriffs should join the ranks of the politicians and leave the work of men to the men.

As I said, moral decision points.  When it comes down to your jobs, your safety, your livelihood and your wellbeing, what will you do?

Fluffington Post:

If you hoard weapons for the express purpose of overturning the elected administration, then you are many things. A patriot isn’t one of them. Blind adherence to a single amendment does not make you a champion of the Constitution itself. Violent intent towards the duly-elected government does not make you a friend to the nation. There is in fact an accurate word for this species of plotting: treason.

Yes, I know — it’s a matter of arming civilians against tyranny. That in itself is not a monstrous concept, and you find something of that in the Founders’ fear of a standing army, and hence in the Second Amendment itself.

Note, however: you don’t get to define “tyrant” any which way you’d like. John Wilkes Booth, for example, clearly thought that Abraham Lincoln fit the description. After shooting the president, he famously announced: “sic semper tyrannis” (“thus always to tyrants”). Hence, he was simply exercising his constitutional rights, right?

Sadly for Booth, Americans did not much agree with his assessment of Lincoln. Booth saw himself as ridding the nation of a tyrant, but the nation mostly saw him as the treasonous assassin of their elected leader. See how this works? It’s all a matter of perspective, isn’t it.

Ignore the example he uses and everything else he says, and focus on his argument.  The popular vote determines the public good.  Or, might makes right.  It’s an appeal to authority, with the authority being determined in the voting booth.  It’s a form of the genetic fallacy.

Well, speaking of perspective, I have my weapons for a great multitude of reasons rather than for one express reason.  I guess that exempts me from his charges of treason.  As for being unpatriotic, regardless of who is in office or what the particular policy being debated, it seems terribly wrong to tell me that my rights are subject to a popular vote and that my perspective must be subservient to the poll.  If so, then they aren’t “rights” by any measure of the word.

Kurt Hofmann:

Back in December, St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner predicted that a private sales ban is the most likely federal infringement on that which shall not be infringed–far easier to pass than banning so-called “assault weapons” (gun banner-speak for “regime change rifles“) or “high capacity” magazines (gun banner-speak for “standard capacity magazines”) will be.

If anything about that assessment has changed, the difference is that it looks still more accurate now. In that article, we noted that even many supposedly “pro-gun” Republicans have historically supported private sales bans even before the Sandy Hook atrocity created an anti-gun feeding frenzy that has terrified many of gun rights advocates’ less stalwart “allies” in Congress.

Since then, NRA president David Keene has made clear that the NRA is quite willing to trade Americans’ right to privately buy and sell firearms for . . . well, really for nothing but perhaps a bit of a delay before the gun prohibitionists renew their push to eviscerate every other aspect of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. The Hill, in an article titled “NRA chief ‘generally supportive’ of strong background checks” has video of Keene appearing on CBS This Morning, where he discussed the NRA’s surrender terms:

Read the rest at Examiner.  No, no, no, and a thousand times no.  The NRA cannot cave on this issue.  Ignore the claptrap about “caring for the children” and “making sure that weapons don’t fall into the hands of criminals.”  It’s all a ruse designed by the anti-gun lobby.  Universal background checks have nothing whatsoever to do with keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals, or a reduction in violence of any sort.  The system, if set up, is a predecessor and necessary prerequisite to a national gun registry.  This is evil to its very core.

So the next time you hear this claptrap, if it comes from ignorant people, educate them.  If it comes from people who know better, call them a liar.  If it comes from the NRA, tell them that they’re cowards and do not represent your interests.  And then tell them that you want to see them thrown out on their heads so that they can be replaced with people who honor the second amendment.

No surrender, no retreat.  Not … one … inch.

Prior: Against Universal Background Checks