I would like one of these...

but fortunately, my neighbors have no problems with guns...

A great article.... "Why do liberals bleed?"

From a posting on Facebook. I had to post it here. This article makes so much sense!



http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/why_do_liberals_bleed.html

Gimme back my bullets!

Maybe here is an explanation as to why I cannot afford to even plink around with my low caliber firearms!

AMMO SHORTAGE

But at least there is the hope that the tight squeeze will be loosening soon.

Later!

And so it begins?

Check this out!


Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Obamaism. It is just the same old socialist attempt to control us and our lives. What you do, what you think, what you own.

Bet I am on a list like this now...

First the Guns, now the knives...

Looks like the gun ban in Britain has opened up a new wave of violence that any normal person could have told you was going to happen. Young people, primarily 18 and under, those same people who would not have been able to get a gun in the first place, are increasingly turing to cutlery to take their aggression out on others. Factoids from the AP story are that in 2006 17 teenagers were killed in London by people using knives, 27 in 2007, and 16 so far this year! "Many young people there are saying the pressure to carry and use knives is growing. It's increasing. It is stupid things like 'you have spoken to my girlfriend, I'll slash you up,' or 'If I see him out, he having it.'"

You all know I am totally against any kind of further gun restriction laws because the ones we already have don't work, and frankly if more law abiding people were allowed to carry their guns on any given day, fewer criminals would be willing to take a chance on hurting someone during a crime, or even attempt the crime. Go look it up for yourself. More guns in the right hands produce less crime. I am not gonna belabor this argument. You know how I stand. Either accept it or shove off.

Now it looks like places like London are going to start placing bans on knives. They have lowered the age limit to those who can be charged by carrying a knife to 16. With the charge, anyone 16 or over carrying a knife with a blade 3 inches or more will be prosecuted and could face up to 4 years in prison. The mayor has even proposed searching people for knives without having to justify their suspicions beforehand. Hey, my pocketknife, which I literally use everyday (without anyone, save myself, getting hurt or killed with) is over 3 inches!

I can see where eventually the head in the sand, namby-pamby take more of my rights away so I can be safe, gun control idiots in this country will pick up on this and start to regulate whether or not I can carry my pocketknife.

And then what next? My walking stick?!

A Well Regulated Militia

I am not sure why all of a sudden this topic has become more and more prevalent in my mind, but with the recent shooting of innocents by loopy brained idiots who were pretty much wastes of space, I suppose that more gun control nut jobs are gonna start screaming about stricter gun laws. And as most of you know from reading this blog, I am a big advocate of more guns for those who are allowed to have them. (NOTE: I said those allowed to have them, not EVERYONE!) Anyway, this came across my desk and I thought that this guy made alot of good sense. His name is Bruce Kauffmann and he is published in the newspapers, usually in the commentary section. His column is "History Lessons" and it is quite good. The link to the article, which I will include in it's entirety, is at http://concealed.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/%E2%80%A2-kauffmanns-history-lesson/.

I provide the link as it has a bunch of other 2nd amendment thoughts and links that you might use if you so wish to investigate the matter further.

Anyhow, I agree with what Kauffmann has to say and only wish I could have said it first, but then I am not a columnist, nor much of a writer. So I let others say if for me and then pass it along to you. Here is the column.

Bruce’s History Lessons: The oh so controversial second amendment

By Bruce Kauffmann Special to the Tribune-Star When the Bill of Rights was ratified this week (Dec. 15) in 1791, the Founders never dreamed that centuries later the Second Amendment would become so controversial. To them, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” was fairly straightforward language.
How wrong they were, as evidenced by the Supreme Court’s recent decision to rule on whether Washington, D.C.’s strict firearms law violates the Constitution, “a decision,” The Washington Post wrote, “that will raise the politically and culturally divisive issue of gun control just in time for the 2008 elections.”
The main controversy is over the phrase “A well regulated militia,” and its relationship to the statement “the people’s right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Gun-control advocates believe this language means that if you don’t belong to a “regulated militia” your right to own a gun can be “infringed.”
Gun-rights advocates counter by noting that the amendment does not grant a right; it recognizes a right already granted. The amendment does not say, “The people have the right to keep and bear arms.”
It says, “the (already established) right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” And they have a point. As even the Supreme Court has acknowledged, the right to own firearms precedes the Bill of Rights.
Gun advocates also note that because the amendment gives the right to bear arms to the “people,” not the states, claiming that this right is dependent on anything the states do or don’t do — including forming militias — is ludicrous. After all, the Bill of Rights mentions no specific rights that the states possess, but several the people do.
Two additional points: In 1791, most state militias did not give guns to militiamen when militias were formed. Militiamen brought their guns with them — from home. Indeed, the amendment says they can “keep” their firearms, not merely “bear” them during military service.
Finally, (my hero) James Madison’s original Second Amendment language was as follows: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country.”
Written that way, he is saying that if the people don’t have the right to arms, there can’t be a militia. That Congress reversed the order does not change Madison’s intent.
Granted, all constitutional rights, including free speech and gun ownership, are subject to reasonable restrictions — you can’t yell “Fire” in a crowded theater, and felons can’t possess firearms. But the general right to own firearms is constitutionally protected. We will see what the Supreme Court thinks.

Bruce Kauffmann’s e-mail address is bruce@historylessons.net