A big victory for the Constitution and Americans

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment prohibits state and federal governments from banning possession of guns.  Though this right should seem obvious to all.  It was only upheld by a 5-4 vote.  But a win is a win.

The convoluted "logic" of "gun control" advocates

In this otherwise nondescript story about the U.S. Supreme Court hearing (not deciding - which would actually be news) a gun control case pertaining to the City of Chicago's ban on handguns in the home comes this "logical" nugget in two, back-to-back paragraphs . . .

"In 1982, Chicago imposed the strict gun ordinance to help combat rampant gang and firearm violence that plagued the city.

"In court papers, lawyers for the city of Chicago [arguing in favor of the ban] pointed out that 402 of the 412 firearm homicides occurred with the use of handguns in 2008."

Did everybody catch that?  Handguns were responsible for 402 of 412 homicides involving firearms in 2008 . . . that's 26 year after those handguns were banned.

How's that handgun ban workin' out for you Chicago?

Brilliant.  Let's keep passing laws that make the law-abiding disarm while those who couldn't care less about laws against harming other people, much less laws banning handguns, keep their weapons.  That makes for a fair fight, doesn't it?

Concealed carry prevents armed robbery in Miami

Link to story here.

A sad solution in North St. Louis

Today, Jake Wagman at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that an alderman from the City's north side, Quincy Troupe, is actively encouraging law-abiding residents to buy guns and learn to use them to defend themselves since he no longer has confidence that the police department can or will protect citizens of his ward.

In the car this afternoon/evening, I heard Mark Reardon interviewing Troupe on KMOX.  Troupe seems fed up with the violence in his ward.  And who can blame him.  The Post reported that there were nine homicides there in the first ten months of the year.

But Troupe seemed more frustrated with the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department's response to the rampant violence.  Response times for reported crimes are so slow that the department is becoming irrelevant in Troupe's ward.  Some constituents, he claimed, aren't even calling the police anymore to report crimes because doing so would do no good.

If the police can't - or won't - defend you or your family, what is a responsible person to do?  There is only one answer and it is clear - do the job yourself.

The solution is sad, but Quincy Troupe can't think of another one.  Unfortunately, neither can I.

An argument for guns . . . and Darwinism

Today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported today on an attempted armed robbery of a City bar foiled by a gun-wielding bartender Monday.  When the criminals walked into the bar, pulled a handgun, and ordered everyone to hit the floor, the bartender pulled his own gun and fired, hitting one of the robbers, Demetric Harbin, twice in the rear.  Harbin was arrested, but his compatriot escaped (you can't win them all).

Criminals shouldn't be the only armed people in the world.  If gun control advocates had succeeded in eviscerating the Second Amendment, this robbery would likely have succeeded and who knows what else might have happened.

It is also fortunate that neither Harbin nor his fellow robber was smart enough to determine what kind of bar they intended to victimize . . . the bar, Pooh's Corner, just happens to be a hangout for off-duty and retired police officers, like the unnamed bartender hero.

Credit and Scorn to the Chicago Tribune

Reacting to the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision holding that the Second Amendment to the Constitution actually means what it says, today's editorial in the Chicago Tribune calls for a repeal of that portion of the Bill of Rights.

This call to action must not be heeded.  If the people are not allowed arms, there is one less check on tyrannical government.  The Tribune (no surprise) is wrong on the issue.

But they also deserve some credit.  An amendment to the Constitution is the right way to change what you don't like about it.  Unfortunately, we live in a country that allows unelected judges to "interpret" the Constitution and morph its clear language into whatever they want it to say.  In this way, the cornerstone document of our nation has been twisted so much that it now hardly resembles what was enacted by our founding fathers.

Maybe the Tribune will start a trend . . . instead of enacting policy by judicial fiat, maybe we'll go back to the people - or at least our elected representatives - having a voice.  (Just wishful thinking?)

Calling Steelman Out For Political Pandering

The Joplin Globe threw a hard but accurate punch at Republican candidate for governor Sarah Steelman in an editorial today for staging "a political stunt."  

Steelman, according to the Globe, invited reporters to a store where she made a show of purchasing a rifle as a birthday present for her 13-year-old son.  She "posed for the cameras, holding various rifles while pretending to set her sights on a target.  She then posed for a news conference in front of display cases of shells."

The Globe supports gun rights but called Steelman's event "nonsense" since her support for the Second Amendment is "a given."  And probably since both her political rivals also claim to support gun rights.  The editorial concluded with a request . . . "Next time, Sarah, don't call a press conference unless you really have something to say."

Kudos to the Joplin Globe.  Well said.

Charlton Heston R.I.P.

Actor and Second Amendment advocate Charlton Heston died Saturday night.  He was 84.

Heston did great service to the conservative cause as president of the National Rifle Association from 1998 to 2003.  He was a skilled spokesman and showed that you don't have to be a right-wing wacko kook to support the right of an individual in America to keep and bear arms.

Mr. Heston, rest in peace.

Obama's a Liberal . . . And Hiding It

I'm not sure what hurts Barack Obama's candidacy more, the fact that people are discovering that he's really a true-blue liberal or the fact that he's trying to hide his liberalism.  

Personally, I would have more respect for the man if he would tell us what he really thought instead of hiding behind vacuous platitudes and say-nothing speeches.  And I certainly have no respect for Obama now claiming that he didn't complete and never read his answers to candidate questionnaires from his campaign for the Illinois Senate.

In December, The Politico published a story on Obama's 1996 responses to a questionnaire submitted to him by a liberal Chicago group.  In his responses, Obama stated that he supported state legislation to "ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns."  He also stated that he was completely opposed to capital punishment.  He was opposed to notifying the parents of minors seeking abortion and opposed to any other restriction on abortion.

Obama's presidential campaign backed away from those views trying to paint their candidate as more moderate and mainstream.  The official position was that the questionnaires at issue were completed by an underling and that Obama never saw them.

Today, The Politico published a follow up story with a copy of the questionnaire showing Obama's handwritten additions.  (Sounds a lot like Hillary Clinton's tall tale of sniper fire being proven untrue by CBS's videotape.  Surprised kudos to the media for actually reporting on these stories.)

Obama's claimed ignorance is not true.  He answered the questionnaire and he's not telling the truth about it now.

And Obama's not telling the truth about his present "moderate" positions either.  I agree with the treasurer of the group that issued the questionnaire in 1996, Aviva Patt.  She's quoted as saying that she "always believed [the liberal responses to the questionnaire] to be his views . . . what he really believes in."  Now, Patt stated, Obama is "tailoring" his positions "to make himself more palatable as a nationwide candidate."  Don't forget, Obama was ranked as the most liberal senator in 2007.

What's worse, being a liberal or being a liberal in moderate clothing?  

Either way, Obama should not be elected president.

Would Hillary Take Away Your Guns in an Emergency? Yes.

Imagine and emergency situation where the social order has broken down and chaos reigns.  Imagine a time when the police cannot protect you or your family.  Imagine, as L.A. Times blogger Tim Cavanaugh invites us to imagine, the next Hurricane Katrina.  In such a situation, law abiding gun owners have the ability to lawfully protect themselves.

But if Hillary Clinton had her way, the government could take citizens' weapons in such situations.  In 2006, she voted against a measure in the Senate that prohibited confiscation of legal firearms during emergencies and major disasters.  Luckily, 84 senators (including, to their credit, John McCain and Barak Obama) voted for and passed the legislation.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.  That right is fundamental to liberty.  The founding fathers had emergencies and disasters in mind when they legally protected your ability and my ability to defend ourselves, our families and our freedom.

Be wary of any politician who would vote to limit your Second Amendment rights and confiscate legal guns in an emergency.

More Guns, Less Crime?

This morning I heard a very interesting interview with Professor John Lott from the University of Maryland on KMOX Radio's Charlie Brennan Show.

Professor Lott makes a very convincing argument that shooting incidents like the one last week in Kirkwood and yesterday at Northern Illinois University are more likely in a gun control society like ours, where licensed citizens are prohibited from carrying concealed weapons in many public places.  His argument is made in detail in his book, More Guns, Less Crime:  Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.

Lott contends that by gathering together in gun free zones, Americans are making them sitting ducks for madmen with guns.  The madmen, of course, don't seem to be swayed the sign on the door that says guns are prohibited.  The victims, however, don't have guns and aren't able to defend themselves.

The entire interview can be heard at this link, though you may have to scroll down to look for it.  (I couldn't figure out how to link directly to the audio.)

It is definitely food for thought.  As is the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.