Gun rights: Of rights, needs and 'sporting purposes'

Let us ignore all that, and further, let's ignore the fact that the first ten amendments to the Constitution are not called the "Bill of Needs." In other words, let's accept for now the dubious assertion that not only do we not need these things, but that our lack of such a need justifies Congress banning them.

So, then, how does one square bans justified by a lack of "need," with other gun bans based on lack of sporting use? No one, after all, needs sports, which perhaps explains why the Second Amendment is silent about the "right to keep and bear sporting goods."

Gun ban extremists like Feinstein, Lautenberg and McCarthy would ban guns that (they claim) we don't "need." They also claim the authority to ban guns that (again, they claim) are not suitable for purposes more frivolous than need. What does that leave? [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Gun ban groups threaten to sue CA Att. Gen. for not altering English language

Still, though, even Harris is evidently balking at the pressure the gun ban groups are trying to mount. That would indicate that she understands that a magazine that cannot be removed without a tool is not "detachable." Diamond blade, high speed circular saws are tools, after all, as are plasma cutting torches, and no magazine would stay "attached" for long against efforts to remove them with such tools.

The anti-gun groups, then, are threatening to sue her if she does not redefine the word "detachable." Not particularly surprising--the same groups certainly have a strange way of defining shall not be infringed. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Oh, and if you could spare a digg?

New York Times hosts call to 'get rid of the right to bear arms'

In the end, whether or not Professor Price (and Bill Maher and his guests) like it or not, the Second Amendment is the Constitutional guarantee of the fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Amending it out of the Constitution is theoretically possible, but to thwart such an effort, only 13 states would have to resist it. In America, when it comes to fighting tyranny, 13 is definitely a lucky number. And repealing the Second Amendment would still not cancel a right that is, after all, unalienable.

Those who would nullify the right to keep and bear arms had best be prepared to kill--by the tens of thousands--to do it. That's not easy, when the would-be victims are armed. That difficulty is the reason for the Second Amendment. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Oh, and if you could spare a digg?

Numerous Cabinet-level departments in on Operation Fast and Furious

With at least three, and more probably four, Cabinet-level departments involved with Operation Fast and Furious, it strains credulity to believe that the heads of those departments were somehow unaware of the operation while it was going on, and yet that's exactly what they claim. Are we to believe that low-level bureaucrats took it upon themselves to cross three or four department lines to conduct this operation, without mentioning it to their bosses? [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Oh, and if you could spare a digg?