by Angry Mouse

Liberals love the Constitution.

Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization.

I know liberal couples who give each other pocket size copies of the Constitution for Christmas.

Ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they will invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process." It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus."

There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, the former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

So.

Liberals love the Constitution. They especially love the Bill of Rights. They love all the Amendments.

Except for one: the Second Amendment.

The Tacoma News Tribune is reporting that the Department of the Interior proposed a rule change this week that would allow people to carry a concealed firearm in a national park or wildlife refuge.

By David Kopel

Imagine an election race of Pat Robertson versus James Dobson, each of them appearing at organic grocery stores and Starbucks throughout Massachusetts, with each candidate insisting that he alone deserves the vote of gay-marriage advocates. An equally silly spectacle is taking place these days in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky, as Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama compete for the pro-gun vote.

Mr. Obama supports the Second Amendment – or so his surrogates have been claiming all over Pennsylvania, the state with the highest per-capita membership in the National Rifle Association. The effort was set back last weekend with the publication of Mr. Obama's remarks claiming that people in small towns in Pennsylvania and other Midwestern states "cling" to guns because they are "bitter" that the government has not solved their economic problems.

Mrs. Clinton shot back with an excellent speech in Valparaiso, Ind., recounting that her father had taught her how to shoot when she was a little girl. "People enjoy hunting and shooting because it's an important part of who they are," she said. "Not because they are bitter."

By Mark Noble

A few days ago, the Dayton Daily News ran a piece proclaiming that "Students for Concealed Carry on Campus is fighting for the right to be armed at school." The reality is that all students have an inherent right to be armed – it cannot be forcefully removed from a determined student. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus are merely pressing legislators to bring their civil liberties in line with their existing inherent rights.

By L. Dietle

There has been little Second Amendment jurisprudence. In this vacuum, myths were cooked up and circulated to dilute the Amendment's original meaning. In the March 18, 2008 D.C. vs. Heller oral argument at the Supreme Court, these myths were thoroughly debunked by the Supreme Court Justices themselves. If honest, they will overturn D.C.'s functional firearms ban. They should also apply the Second Amendment to the States (incorporation) and establish strict judicial scrutiny.

The Second Amendment was considered a fundamental individual right by those who wrote and ratified the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. A majority of Americans still considers it so today. It would take 3/4ths of the States to amend the Second Amendment out of the Constitution, but that many States filed an Amicus Brief to overturn the D.C. functional firearms ban. A majority of Congress did the same (to see all briefs, click here). The Second Amendment is here to stay.

Big City Mayors continue to look for a scapegoat for their crime problem

By Brian S. Stewart

Hillary Clinton is doing her best to tiptoe around the gun issue during her attempts to win rural votes in Pennsylvania. But even a scaled-down-on-gun-control Hillary Clinton means calls for a renewed crackdown on interstate gun “trafficking” and a renewal of an assault weapons ban. In a recent speech on fighting crime she even noted “a direct correlation to illegal gun sales and homicides”. Yet in the eyes of the mainstream media she’s dodging the issue by not explicitly endorsing Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter's array of new gun control laws.

The Boston Globe article has all sorts of little anti-gun sound bites that are spouted off as gospel. A Democratic consultant opines that Clinton doesn’t want to irritate her rural, blue collar constituency, "But I don't know how you talk about homicide in Philadelphia without talking about guns."

I do. Talk about violent crime and those that commit it. Talk about decaying inner cities and the conditions which perpetuate these cycles of violence. Talk about drugs and drug dealers. Talk about gangs. Even if you removed guns, which is impossible, these conditions would still exist. And violent criminals always find ways to be violent criminals.

Me to gun owners who vote for either one: You're just stupid.

By Chad D. Baus

One insults our small-town values. The other insults our inteligence. Just another week in the Democrats' 2008 Presidential primary.

By Brent Greer

On Wednesday, April 16, gun control and anti self defense organizations are planning a series of protests around the nation to commemorate the one year anniversary of the mass murders at Virginia Tech. Remember? This was a likely preventable tragedy, had university administrators not openly scoffed at the common-sense proposal to permit students, faculty and staff the means to defend themselves.

Instead, a man opened fire on students in two locations, killing more than 30. The students never had a chance because campus administrators around this nation live in fear of their own shadows. Campuses where open thought and discussion are allegedly encouraged are shut down, and reasonable proposals and debate to enable students to protect themselves are dismissed out of hand with no comprehension of the unintended consequences.

Sadly, Virginia Tech administrators, students, staff, professors and families learned all about unintended consequences.

By Tim Inwood

There are certain pro-gun control elements in the American news media that have been almost despondent since the Supreme Court heard District of Columbia v. Heller. It was pretty clear to most observers from the comments made by the Justices that a majority on the Court will rule the Second Amendment is a recognition of a pre-existing individual right.

However, these individuals in the press also know certain members of the Court have in the past been swayed by emotion rather than logic and the law. With that in mind, they have been praying for an incident so they could hype the need for additional gun regulation (if not outright bans) prior to the Court making its ruling sometime after June. Sadly, they have gotten what they wanted, and just in time for them to tie it to the Virginia Tech tragedy.

BELLEVUE, WA - Democrat Barack Obama on Tuesday insulted millions of legally-armed American citizens when he told a Pennsylvania newspaper that concealed carry poses a threat to innocent people, and he should immediately apologize for that remark, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

Senator Obama, quoted by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, admitted, "I am not in favor of concealed weapons. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."