Pirate's Cove

Stopping by Little Miss Attila's spot, I saw that she was referencing an opinion piece by Barry Saunders, who writes in my hometown paper, the News and Observer. Sadly, he uses his soapbox for a standard liberal rant on gun control. As LMA puts it

Barry Saunders of Raleigh, North Carolina's, News & Observer encapsulates the "reasoning" we'll be hearing a lot of in the weeks and months ahead: that if only a big magnet in the sky could suck up all the firearms on the planet, no one ever need fear "gun violence" again. And events like those at Virginia Tech would need never happen again.

She was too angry to send him an email, which is perfectly understandable. Barry gets up on his high moral horse, and is using the tragedy to push his own little "let's put an end to the 2nd Amendment" viewpoint before the blood is even dry in Blacksburg. Like a good little liberal, he uses each and every tragedy as political fodder.

Nor was I the only person who cussed out loud when the president's spokeswoman preceded him to the microphone and assured gun makers their livelihoods weren't in danger.

"Right to bear arms," my eye. The president's message of reassurance was not aimed at hunters or recreational shooters but at the industry that makes millions flooding our country with guns.

The good news is that we heard a reassuring message coming from the White House. The bad news is that it was reassuring only to gun makers: Hunters don't use 9 mm handguns, as the shooter in Blacksburg allegedly did.

"The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms," deputy press secretary Dana Perino said. President Bush arrived at the lectern to decry the deaths of the students and their suspected gunman.

C'mon, dawg. The least you could've done was express condolences for the dead kids and their families first.

I don't know about you, but the coded message I heard from the president to gun makers was, "Chill, homes. Nobody's takin' yer guns as long as Big George is runnin' this here country."

Couldn't have an opinion piece from Saunders without some good anti-Bush words. I suspect he cusses when Bush comes to the microphone at any time, then seethes throughout. (presidents speech here)

I would think that Bush, along with any president, should believe in the right of people to bear arms, especially since it is a Constitutional Right, upheld in U.S. v. Emerson, as well as U.S. v. Miller. In case Barry is unaware of it, the presidential oath includes "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Gee, the president actually defending the Constitution. Imagine that.

As far as gun control?

• countries who have banned firearms have higher crime rates then the USA
• gun control laws leave guns in the hands of criminals, who get them illegally, leaving the citizens at their mercy
• States with the highest private gun ownership have seen the largest decrease in crime rates, particularly those states with concealed carry laws.
• The longer the waiting period to buy a gun, the higher the crime rate
• Florida State criminologist Gary Kleck reported that citizens use guns to defend themselves 1 million times a year, and that in 98% of the cases, the criminals flee the moment they realize the victim was armed (granted, I doubt that would have worked at Va Tech)

I won't cite the sources, as they would all be deemed to be from "neocons," assuredly. But, they are out there, and easy to find.

I won't get into a discussion of what the Second Amendment means to me, as that would detract from the substance of the post. Suffice it to say, I believe it means that the People can keep and bear arms in order to protect themselves, their families, their communities, and their States from any who want to harm them, including the federal government. The Framers were very concerned regarding the power of the Federal government, which they never saw as being as powerful as it is today, hence the 10th Amendment.

However, let's jump back to U.S. v. Emerson, in which the Court wrote

The appearance of "bear Arms" in the Second Amendment accords fully with the plain meaning of the subject of the substantive guarantee, "the people," and offers no support for the proposition that the Second Amendment applies only during periods of actual military service or only to those who are members of a select militia. Finally, our view of "bear arms" as used in the Second Amendment appears to be the same as that expressed in the dissenting opinion of Justice Ginsburg (joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Souter) in Muscarello v. United States…..We conclude that (US v.) Miller does not support the government's collective rights or sophisticated collective rights approach to the Second Amendment. Indeed, to the extent that Miller sheds light on the matter it cuts against the government's position.

Pretty plain.

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Adam's Blog, Maggie's Notebook, basil's blog, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Rightlinx, Faultline USA, Allie Is Wired, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D'ITALIA, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.