That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend--and Facebook "likes" and "shares" are hugely appreciated.If Carson does make a presidential run, and if he wants the gun rights advocate vote--and it's hard to imagine him getting far without it--he has a great deal to learn, and not much time in which to learn it. [More]
Stumble it!
2 comments:
So, Dr. Carson would "grant" permission to own an AR-15 or Mini-14 to a farmer in rural Kansas, but not to a Korean grocer in South Central Los Angeles? And a hermit in Idaho could own a Glock 17 or a Beretta 92, but a nurse in Chicago could not? Which of those people would be more likely to need a high-capacity weapon for self-defense? Where are you more likely to be attacked by rioters or muggers (or by thugs playing the "knockout game")? (I don't believe that citizens should have to prove "need" in order to own guns. In a free country, the burden of proof is on the government to justify restrictions, not on citizens to justify freedom of choice. Still, it's ironic that anti-gun activists would deny weapons to the people most likely to need them.)
There is no basis for communication with the loony leftists, and therefore no way to work out a "reasonable compromise." The argument over whether the Second Amendment "grants" an individual right to own weapons is a perfect example. The liberals/progressives/whatever believe that government is the source of human rights. Therefore, the government can grant or deny any rights it chooses. That attitude shows a total lack of understanding of basic American principles. The US Constitution does not grant rights; it officially recognizes the rights with which people were born.
Post a Comment