Caleb points to Uncle, who comments and points to Sebastien, who uses a line I have used before. Dirtcrashr has a few choice words, too.
The issue, for anyone who just stumbled on this blog and has never read any of the giants I linked to above, is a man who emigrated to the US several decades ago but remains a British Crown subject. Yeah, I know, seems odd to me too, but he has his own reasons, and maybe they're excellent ones. HIS OWN BUSINESS. As long as he lives here in the US of A, I see no reason why he should be deprived of the right to defend himself with the most efficient means available, i.e., a handgun, carried concealed against need.
What is really striking about this case,of course... Well, maybe not "of course".
For years--decades, in fact--some have accused the National Rifle Association of being "anti-liberty", "anti-freedom", "anti-gun rights." Why? Well, sometimes because we lose one--the old "We were sold out!" argument--obviously, the only reason Congress would pass a law counter to the interests of gun owners is because the NRA told them to, right?
Other times it's because the NRA works to get a compromise on a law, that is not necessarily all we want, but could be worse--i.e., Instant Background Checks instead of an automatic, nation-wide five day (or longer!) waiting period, with a prohibition on storing buyer data.
Sometimes NRA works behind the scenes and doesn't even publicize their actions, as part of the political process: This happened recently with the EPA's plans to ban all lead ammunition, which most of us only heard about after the NRA got it stopped.
In the meantime, the Gun Owners of America was touting itself as the ""pure" gun rights organization, no compromise, no surrender, nothing less than full Second Amendment-compliant rights for all.
Until now...
The issue, for anyone who just stumbled on this blog and has never read any of the giants I linked to above, is a man who emigrated to the US several decades ago but remains a British Crown subject. Yeah, I know, seems odd to me too, but he has his own reasons, and maybe they're excellent ones. HIS OWN BUSINESS. As long as he lives here in the US of A, I see no reason why he should be deprived of the right to defend himself with the most efficient means available, i.e., a handgun, carried concealed against need.
What is really striking about this case,
For years--decades, in fact--some have accused the National Rifle Association of being "anti-liberty", "anti-freedom", "anti-gun rights." Why? Well, sometimes because we lose one--the old "We were sold out!" argument--obviously, the only reason Congress would pass a law counter to the interests of gun owners is because the NRA told them to, right?
Other times it's because the NRA works to get a compromise on a law, that is not necessarily all we want, but could be worse--i.e., Instant Background Checks instead of an automatic, nation-wide five day (or longer!) waiting period, with a prohibition on storing buyer data.
Sometimes NRA works behind the scenes and doesn't even publicize their actions, as part of the political process: This happened recently with the EPA's plans to ban all lead ammunition, which most of us only heard about after the NRA got it stopped.
In the meantime, the Gun Owners of America was touting itself as the ""pure" gun rights organization, no compromise, no surrender, nothing less than full Second Amendment-compliant rights for all.
Until now...
1 comment:
One of the guys who shoots in my club is a Brit who worked in high-tech sales, then with the Dot.Bomb lost his VP position and switched to Real Estate - for him it was just sentimental I think, he was British. Good shot with the .303 and a lot of patches on his shooting coat. Haven't seen him in a while since Real Estate started tanking...
Post a Comment