This is an East coast police chief. If you listen carefully to what he says, it makes no sense. One moment he talks about criminals who have guns being a threat to law-abiding citizens and a major problem for the police. I agree, absolutely. THEN the NEXT moment he is talking about not being afraid of the NRA and keeping guns away from law-abiding citizens (even though he admits the criminals have them) including a Mossberg shotgun! Ummmm.... Mr. Police Chief, if the criminals have guns it is because they got them illegally, not in a gun store, so how does keeping guns from law-abiding citizens prevent anything other than our ability to protect ourselves from those same criminals you just called a serious problem there?
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Interpretation
How do YOU interpret the 2nd Amendment? Do you agree with the findings of the US Supreme Court, or do you think that they made a mistake, and WHY do you think that? Please share your impressions here!
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Correction, and more bad news!
I stand corrected on my prior post about being allowed to carry in all National Parks & forests. The way it's actually worded is that it depends on the policy of the state where that park resides. So if the state allows gun carry in their parks, so will the National Parks. But if they don't then neither will the National Parks. Still, it's a better deal than it used to be.
Now for the bad news. Remember the famous assault weapons ban a number of years ago? Well, it's back again! A group in Congress is pressing to put it back. I haven't yet found the details in order to compare the new proposal with the old, but after what happened last time I am not a happy camper about this potential change. Does anybody out there know more about this particular version, who could clarify it for us?
Now for the bad news. Remember the famous assault weapons ban a number of years ago? Well, it's back again! A group in Congress is pressing to put it back. I haven't yet found the details in order to compare the new proposal with the old, but after what happened last time I am not a happy camper about this potential change. Does anybody out there know more about this particular version, who could clarify it for us?
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Allowing guns in National Parks & Forests
I was pleasantly surprised by that change by the Secretary, and equally I was dismayed when I started seeing people voicing their concerns with statements to the effect of "an unloaded gun locked in the trunk should be more than adequate protection". How on Earth could an unloaded gun, locked away, protect anyone? If some drug-crazed wacko, or even a bear or wolverine comes into camp, do you really think they'll give you the time and access you need to get that gun out of your trunk, load it, and prepare to defend yourself? That sounds more like someone speaking from emotion rather than logic. Someone who simply has an irrational fear of guns. I mean really, think about it. The only people affected by the laws and regulations regarding where you can or cannot take a gun are the people who are law-abiding good citizens to begin with. Are these people really THAT naive that they think the bad guys will respect any law at all? Or that bears and other predators (cougars, wolverines, etc.) will stand and wait for you to get everything together to shoot them? Come on!! Can you spell "G-E-T-A-C-L-U-E"??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


