The Right Guy Show

An old fashioned libertarian’s view on the world

Archive for the ‘Gun Ban Agenda’ Category

The Des Moines Register Doesn’t Get It Again:Gun Rights are a natural right, not a states right

leave a comment »


While they were on a roll, The Des Moines Register decided to take another swipe at the Right with an article “New Push by NRA in Iowa creates Firefight”.   The author quotes some alleged gun rights people as being against the measures proposed by the NRA, which are to allow people that are legally entitled to carry a concealed weapon to be allowed to have guns stored in their cars at work or in a locker at work. The author continues and says that this violates a sheriffs discretion. First off, Iowa is not a shall issue state and in spite of the second amendment being a federal constitutional amendment, we have counties here where the sheriffs deny anyone a pistol license. As far as I am concerned, all states should be shall issue, which means that as long as a person is not a convicted felon or had spent time in a mental institution, they should be allowed to get a license to carry a concealed weapon.

Saying this violates property rights is a little bit of a red herring. Governments have no problem violating property rights with eminent domain, often arbitrarily and with disproportionate compensation. I have yet to see The Des Moines Register or any other rag come out against Eminent Domain, even in the cases where the property wasn’t for development by the government, but by private companies. With the continuation of laws that are passed to restrict gun ownership and exercising that right, there is going to be push back. In my state, even people that are lawfully allowed to carry a concealed weapon cannot do so within 1000′ of a school or government property. How does this make anyone safer? Someone intent on using a firearm illegally will disregard the law and those who follow it will be their mercy and be a victim. It is my assertion that the anti-gun crowd wish to create more victims as a way to crete fervor against gun ownership.


The Des Moines Register is just another left wing rag that is pro-socialist, pro-big government, and pro-abortion. While the article tries to pepper itself with quotes against the bill from gun rights people, I would bet most gun rights people want both Iowa to be a Shall Issue state and that we should be allowed to carry our firearms anywhere we are welcome. Let me ask you this: Should free speech be interpreted to be only in suitable places? What about the practice of religion? What about the right to be secure in our persons? All these rights the Left champions even to the extent with religion to give religious status to beliefs that are not religion, but when it comes to a constitutional right as to keep and bear arms, they are silent. Where do you stand?

Thank you for reading this blog.

Written by James Lagnese

December 20, 2009 at 10:47 am

Gun Control: The US and Europe

leave a comment »

Mr. John R. Lott Jr. has an article on the Fox News website that nails it on the head. Mr. Lott is far more eloquent than I, a better writer and more educated, so go here and read the article.
I will say that I see a knee jerk reaction to what has happened in Alabama and Germany. Considering the political climate, I am surprised our congress hasn’t drafted something yet and named it the Kennedy-Pelosi Gun Control Act of 2009. We’ll be whittled down to the Wheellock.
Thank you for reading this blog and thank you to John R. Lott for his.

Written by James Lagnese

March 12, 2009 at 5:43 pm

Gun Control in India

leave a comment »

Could gun rights in India prevented the massacre? India has rather restrictive gun control, as does many socialized countries of the world, where some of the most heinous islamo-fascist terrorist attacks have occurred. Of course, the left wing socialist tree hugging soy swilling habitrail using weanies will want to pass more restrictive gun laws in India and elsewhere after this horrible act, in a continuing saga of doing the same thing but expecting different results. If one out of ten in that hotel had been armed, the results would have been different. Heck, if one in ten of the victims had been armed, many would still be alive. Thanks to John Lott for the video link. 

Thank you for reading this blog. 

Written by James Lagnese

November 29, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Gun Control in India

leave a comment »

Could gun rights in India prevented the massacre? India has rather restrictive gun control, as does many socialized countries of the world, where some of the most heinous islamo-fascist terrorist attacks have occurred. Of course, the left wing socialist tree hugging soy swilling habitrail using weanies will want to pass more restrictive gun laws in India and elsewhere after this horrible act, in a continuing saga of doing the same thing but expecting different results. If one out of ten in that hotel had been armed, the results would have been different. Heck, if one in ten of the victims had been armed, many would still be alive. Thanks to John Lott for the video link. 

Thank you for reading this blog. 

Written by James Lagnese

November 29, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Obama and the Second Amendment: No you can’t

leave a comment »

The NRA has posted the proposed changes in government’s position on guns and gun rights. During the campaign, Obama facilely agreed that people have a right to bear arms. I guess it changed after he got elected. 

“Yes We Can . . . Ban Guns”–Obama Announces Gun Ban Agenda Before The Final Vote Count Is In
 
Friday, November 07, 2008
 

Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign slogan, “the audacity of hope,” should have instead been “the audacity of deceit.” After months of telling the American people that he supports the Second Amendment, and only hours after being declared the president-elect, the Obama transition team website announced an agenda taken straight from the anti-gun lobby–four initiatives designed to ban guns and drive law-abiding firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business: 

“Making the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent.” Perhaps no other firearm issue has been more dishonestly portrayed by gun prohibitionists. Notwithstanding their predictions that the ban’s expiration in 2004 would bring about the end of civilization, for the last four years the nation’s murder rate has been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s. Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun prohibition or gun control reduces crime. Guns that were affected by the ban are used in only a tiny fraction of violent crime-about 35 times as many people are murdered without any sort of firearm (knives, bare hands, etc.), as with “assault weapons.” Obama says that “assault weapons” are machine guns that “belong on foreign battlefields,” but that is a lie; the guns are only semi-automatic, and they are not used by a military force anywhere on the planet. 

“Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment.” The amendment–endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police–prohibits the release of federal firearm tracing information to anyone other than a law enforcement agency conducting a bona fide criminal investigation. Anti-gun activists oppose the restriction, because it prevents them from obtaining tracing information and using it in frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding firearm manufacturers. Their lawsuits seek to obtain huge financial judgments against firearm manufacturers when a criminal uses a gun to inflict harm, even though the manufacturers have complied with all applicable laws. 

“Closing the gun show loophole.” There is no “loophole.” Under federal law, a firearm dealer must conduct a background check on anyone to whom he sells a gun, regardless of where the sale takes place. A person who is not a dealer may sell a gun from his personal collection without conducting a check. Gun prohibitionists claim that many criminals obtain guns from gun shows, though the most recent federal survey of convicted felons put the figure at only 0.7 percent. They also claim that non-dealers should be required to conduct checks when selling guns at shows, but the legislation they support goes far beyond imposing that lone requirement. In fact, anti-gun members of Congress voted against that limited measure, holding out for a broader bill intended to drive shows out of business. 

“Making guns in this country childproof.” “Childproof” is a codeword for a variety of schemes designed to prevent the sale of firearms by imposing impossible or highly expensive design requirements, such as biometric shooter-identification systems. While no one opposes keeping children safe, the fact is thataccidental firearm-related deaths among children have decreased 86 percent since 1975, even as the numbers of children and guns have risen dramatically. Today, the chances of a child being killed in a firearm accident are less than one in a million.

Written by James Lagnese

November 8, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Obama and the Second Amendment: No you can’t

leave a comment »

The NRA has posted the proposed changes in government’s position on guns and gun rights. During the campaign, Obama facilely agreed that people have a right to bear arms. I guess it changed after he got elected. 

“Yes We Can . . . Ban Guns”–Obama Announces Gun Ban Agenda Before The Final Vote Count Is In
 
Friday, November 07, 2008
 

Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign slogan, “the audacity of hope,” should have instead been “the audacity of deceit.” After months of telling the American people that he supports the Second Amendment, and only hours after being declared the president-elect, the Obama transition team website announced an agenda taken straight from the anti-gun lobby–four initiatives designed to ban guns and drive law-abiding firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business: 

“Making the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent.” Perhaps no other firearm issue has been more dishonestly portrayed by gun prohibitionists. Notwithstanding their predictions that the ban’s expiration in 2004 would bring about the end of civilization, for the last four years the nation’s murder rate has been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s. Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun prohibition or gun control reduces crime. Guns that were affected by the ban are used in only a tiny fraction of violent crime-about 35 times as many people are murdered without any sort of firearm (knives, bare hands, etc.), as with “assault weapons.” Obama says that “assault weapons” are machine guns that “belong on foreign battlefields,” but that is a lie; the guns are only semi-automatic, and they are not used by a military force anywhere on the planet. 

“Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment.” The amendment–endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police–prohibits the release of federal firearm tracing information to anyone other than a law enforcement agency conducting a bona fide criminal investigation. Anti-gun activists oppose the restriction, because it prevents them from obtaining tracing information and using it in frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding firearm manufacturers. Their lawsuits seek to obtain huge financial judgments against firearm manufacturers when a criminal uses a gun to inflict harm, even though the manufacturers have complied with all applicable laws. 

“Closing the gun show loophole.” There is no “loophole.” Under federal law, a firearm dealer must conduct a background check on anyone to whom he sells a gun, regardless of where the sale takes place. A person who is not a dealer may sell a gun from his personal collection without conducting a check. Gun prohibitionists claim that many criminals obtain guns from gun shows, though the most recent federal survey of convicted felons put the figure at only 0.7 percent. They also claim that non-dealers should be required to conduct checks when selling guns at shows, but the legislation they support goes far beyond imposing that lone requirement. In fact, anti-gun members of Congress voted against that limited measure, holding out for a broader bill intended to drive shows out of business. 

“Making guns in this country childproof.” “Childproof” is a codeword for a variety of schemes designed to prevent the sale of firearms by imposing impossible or highly expensive design requirements, such as biometric shooter-identification systems. While no one opposes keeping children safe, the fact is thataccidental firearm-related deaths among children have decreased 86 percent since 1975, even as the numbers of children and guns have risen dramatically. Today, the chances of a child being killed in a firearm accident are less than one in a million.

Written by James Lagnese

November 8, 2008 at 2:05 pm