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.More fundamental even than that, though, is the question of what relevance to a Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right can "sporting purposes" have in the first place? That's a troubling question even before the unsavory origins of this pernicious idea of limiting private citizens' access to life and liberty preserving firepower is considered.
The Second Amendment--10% of the Bill of Rights--was not written to protect the right of the people to keep and bear sporting goods. Those who do not want to see the American people playing "Kill the Tyrant" would be well-advised to separate official recognition of the right to keep and bear arms from "sporting purposes." [More]
Stumble it!
2 comments:
The whole "sporting purposes" requirement is a divide-and-conquer tactic by anti-gun activists. It is intended to drive a wedge between people who own guns for sports (e.g., hunting, skeet shooting), and those who own guns for protection. It has usually failed, because most gun owners are not stupid enough to fall for it. (It is a phony distinction in the first place. Very often, a firearm bought for sporting use will get pressed into service for defense against home invaders.) The Second Amendment is not about deer hunting.
Similarly, the "armor piercing bullet/cop-killer ammo" controversy was stirred up by the media to drive a wedge between the police and pro-gun citizens. Before the media hype that began in the early 1980's, no law enforcement officer had ever been killed with armor-piercing bullets that penetrated a protective vest. Since then, though, cops have been killed with (already illegal) armor-piercing ammunition, after the publicity gave criminals the idea to use it.
Post a Comment