And why should they? Why would anyone object to a device that protects one's hearing?That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope you consider it worth your time.
Why, also, would anyone object to devices that make shooting ranges better neighbors? People who live near such ranges often find the noise annoying enough that they try to litigate the ranges out of existence--despite, in many cases, having moved into the area after the range had been in operation for years. These disputes have led many states (even Illinois, shockingly) to pass legislation that provides some protection to shooting ranges from such litigation. Devices that could dramatically ameliorate the problem have existed for more than a century, but have been largely regulated out of existence. For that reason alone, this is an issue that people with no interest in gun rights, or in shooting in general, should be able to get behind.
In the end, it's difficult to trust a government that views shooters with undamaged hearing as a threat. [More]
Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:
- Atlanta: Carrying a firearm openly is not illegal in Georgia
- Austin: Gun control and the Republican party (Part 2)
- Boston: M.D.’s fixing what ails the country
- Charlotte: Armed self-defense: 'To shoot fast, you have to see fast'
- Cleveland: Why concealed handguns don't result in blood running in the streets
- DC: Congress joins states in making parks safe for gun carry
- Denver: When do you actually own a new gun?
- Los Angeles: Sovereignty 101, Part II: No Alternatives to the State?
- Minneapolis: A great couple of days in the Midwest
- National: All in favor of German 'gun control,' raise your right hand
- Seattle: Surprise! Obama nominates liberal to Supreme Court
- Wisconsin: Gun rights advocates make progress
Stumble it!
0 comments:
Post a Comment