Article Archive

Date

Early 2008 Presidential Contenders: Pick your gun control poison

By Chad D. Baus

Traditionally, whomever is leading in polling one year ahead of the Presidential primaries becomes the eventual party nominee. If tradition holds true...there is a storm on the horizon...

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Republican

All gun owners should pass written test
"I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms. My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed...we’re talking about all dangerous weapons."
Source: Boston Globe, p. A4 Mar 21, 2000

Arizona Senator John McCain, Republican

Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; supports gun show checks & "smart" gun technology
McCain favors outlawing cheaply made handguns called Saturday night specials, and favors mandating safety locks on certain guns. He said he is intrigued by new technology that electronically identifies a person handling a gun, allowing only the owner to fire it. McCain rallied Senate Republicans behind a Democratic measure requiring background checks at gun shows.
Source: Scott Lindlaw, Associated Press Aug 17, 1999

Supports ban on certain assault weapons
McCain said he was open to voting for an assault weapon ban, depending on the details.
Source: Los Angeles Times, “McCain Calls for Hearings” Aug 17, 1999

And those are just the top-polling Republicans!

There’s No Such Thing As Sensible Gun Laws: Part 2

A Friendly Open Letter To The New 2007 Congress:

January 01, 2007

By John Longenecker

Before I get to the letter:

Many non-gun owners do not know this, but nearly all states of the union favor and support concealed carry of weapons. For decades, officials there have not regretted cooperating with constituents on the subject. Alaska and Vermont require no permit at all to carry a handgun. But nationwide, this coverage is spotty at best and could use a helpful boost from Congress on certain bills under consideration at any one time. Those bills involve nationwide concealed carry of weapons as a moral imperative and pragmatic essential.

And that’s precisely what this is all about. Officials may not allow or disallow citizens to carry weapons – the official duty of any office is to protect the rights of citizens, and not have an opposing opinion on any single right as if some latitude or discretion were allowed, and in the right-to-carry states, that respect for the entire Bill Of Rights is very much in force and certainly appreciated. The ultimate respect for the sovereign citizen on this subject would be a nationwide repeal of all gun laws.

    Though the subject of gun control has been more from the Left than the Right, I appreciate how many Democrats and representatives-elect are pro-gun - not pro-hunting, but pro-gun - and therefore truly pro-liberty. In their hearts, they are pro-family this way as liberty enthusiasts are, and I welcome them. My thanks and appreciation to all members of Congress who see and support the connection between personal weapons, liberty and household. Congratulations on your wins. With such people in office, we all win.

For the non-gun owner and for officials, here are some germane reasons to revisit the subject of gun legislation for the sovereignty of the American home and community in its planning on how to meet violence as a societal plague that seems intractable. It is not intractable.

My second reason for writing this open letter to Congress is in answer to many editorial pieces including some legal opinions taking a stand against liberty, whether they fully realize it or not. In the name of anti-violence, many activists strive for unattainable Utopian goals – e.g. a violence-free city – and at the expense of liberty. Compelling and coercing fellow sovereign Americans to surrender is fundamentally wrong, certainly constitutionally wrong, and the objective utterly impossible. A friendly clarification is needed for all.

Click 'Read More' to read the entire article.