Woman Posts Yard Sign to “Out” Neighbor as Concealed Carry Licensee

 

By NRA - 10/24/2014

Few of the anti-gun movement’s positions are as self-defeating and mean-spirited as the impulse to “out” others for the choices they make about their Second Amendment rights. Most of them try to justify prying into this private activity under the mismatched rubric of the “public’s right to know,” as if private individuals become public figures merely for the exercise of a fundamental right. In recent years, newspapers have published databases of Right-to-Carry and pistol permit holders, feigning interest in “public safety.” Yet their true motivations were more candidly illustrated recently by the comments of D.C. Councilmembers at a public hearing on D.C.’s new concealed carrying permitting law. “Who cares about the confidentiality of a gun owner? We don’t want it … ,” Councilwoman Yvette Alexander said, arguing to make permit holder information public. Fellow Council member David Grosso -- who also expressed his preference for “no guns at all” in the District -- concurred:  “[A]t least we’ll all know who it is, and we can treat them differently ….” 

Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

With elections just around the corner it’s not uncommon to hear politicians say all kinds of outlandish things to voters in an attempt to further cement their chances of winning an election.

But Mark Udall is making the commander in chief look like a rookie when it comes to the lies he’s telling.

In case you don’t know, Mark Udall is Colorado’s progressive Senator looking to severely hobble second amendment supporters.

And to court undecided voters who don’t like Obama, Udall has come up with a fairy tale where he insists that he’s the last person President Obama wants to see coming down the lawn of the White House. You know, because he’s always telling Obama “No.”

The Myth of the word "Militia" in the 2nd Amendment

 

By Gary Noland - 10/4/2014

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. ~2nd Amendment to the US Constitution
Nothing seems to evoke more passion from either side of the aisle than America’s illustrious 2nd amendment. People on my side of the fence often cite the “shall not be infringed part,” but those who wish to limit or eliminate the citizenry’s right to carry arms often cite the “a well-regulated militia” part.

The Lost Amendment

By Jill Lepore

The debate over the Second Amendment has been fierce and terrible, with bad arguments on both sides, and bad will all around. It began in the nineteen-sixties, when there was a great deal of violence and much concern about it. It took another turn on Friday, when, at the N.R.A.’s annual meeting, in St. Louis, Newt Gingrich said, “The Second Amendment is an amendment for all mankind.”

As I wrote in this week’s New Yorker, no amendment received less attention in the courts in the two centuries following the adoption of the Bill of Rights than the Second, except the Third (which dealt with billeting soldiers in private homes). It used to be known as the “lost amendment,” because hardly anyone ever wrote about it. The assertion that the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to own and carry a gun for self-defense, rather than the people’s right to form militias for the common defense, first became a feature of American political and legal discourse in the wake of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and only gained prominence in the nineteen-seventies.