The Right Guy Show

An old fashioned libertarian’s view on the world

Archive for the ‘Gun Rights’ 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.

Advertisements

Written by James Lagnese

December 20, 2009 at 10:47 am

Freedom=Low Crime: Why Switzerland gets it and the rest of Europe does not

leave a comment »

H/T William “Wild Bill” Donovan

I will let the video speak for itself. The Author asserts that Switzerland is one of the safest European countries and when you compare it to England, Italy or France, it becomes apparent that the biggest difference between the countries is that the people in Switzerland are armed. Would Obama agree? Where are we going with this as a country? Comments?

Thank you for reading this blog.

Written by James Lagnese

December 9, 2009 at 9:22 pm

Posted in Gun Rights, Switzerland

A different type of commercial: All’s well that ends well.

leave a comment »

I wonder if John Lott would approve? 🙂
Thank you for reading this blog.

Written by James Lagnese

May 5, 2009 at 8:40 pm

Posted in Gun Rights, guns, John Lott

San Francisco Woman Gang Raped

leave a comment »

A 28 year old San Francisco woman was brutally gang raped by four men. I have to wonder if San Francisco respected people’s right to bear arms and she had done so, would the result have been different? This crime is horrendous and the aggravating circumstance is that they raped her because she is a lesbian. I hope they catch the men involved and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the the law, but I cannot help wondering if this situation illustrates the need and right of people to protect themselves. Thanks to LR.
Thank you for reading this blog. 

Written by James Lagnese

December 23, 2008 at 7:55 am

OP ED: Concealed Carry Could Stop Terrorism: This from England?

leave a comment »

The London Times has an OP Ed that suggests that concealed carry could help stop terrorism and uses the massacre in India and others as examples. I have mentioned this before. Here is the article:


The firearms massacres that have periodically caused shock and horror around the world have been dwarfed by the Mumbai shootings, in which a handful of gunmen left some 500 people killed or wounded.

For anybody who still believed in it, the Mumbai shootings exposed the myth of “gun control”. India had some of the strictest firearms laws in the world, going back to the Indian Arms Act of 1878, by which Britain had sought to prevent a recurrence of the Indian Mutiny.

The guns used in last week’s Bombay massacre were all “prohibited weapons” under Indian law, just as they are in Britain. In this country we have seen the irrelevance of such bans (handgun crime, for instance, doubled here within five years of the prohibition of legal pistol ownership), but the largely drug-related nature of most extreme violence here has left most of us with a sheltered awareness of the threat. We have not yet faced a determined and broad-based attack.

The Mumbai massacre also exposed the myth that arming the police force guarantees security. Sebastian D’Souza, a picture editor on the Mumbai Mirror who took some of the dramatic pictures of the assault on the Chhatrapati Shivaji railway station, was angered to find India’s armed police taking cover and apparently failing to engage the gunmen.

In Britain we might recall the prolonged failure of armed police to contain the Hungerford killer, whose rampage lasted more than four hours, and who in the end shot himself. In Dunblane, too, it was the killer who ended his own life: even at best, police response is almost always belated when gunmen are on the loose. One might think, too, of the McDonald’s massacre in San Ysidro, California, in 1984, where the Swat team waited for their leader (who was held up in a traffic jam) while 21 unarmed diners were murdered.

Rhetoric about standing firm against terrorists aside, in Britain we have no more legal deterrent to prevent an armed assault than did the people of Mumbai, and individually we would be just as helpless as victims. The Mumbai massacre could happen in London tomorrow; but probably it could not have happened to Londoners 100 years ago.

In January 1909 two such anarchists, lately come from an attempt to blow up the president of France, tried to commit a robbery in north London, armed with automatic pistols. Edwardian Londoners, however, shot back – and the anarchists were pursued through the streets by a spontaneous hue-and-cry. The police, who could not find the key to their own gun cupboard, borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by, while other citizens armed with revolvers and shotguns preferred to use their weapons themselves to bring the assailants down.

Today we are probably more shocked at the idea of so many ordinary Londoners carrying guns in the street than we are at the idea of an armed robbery. But the world of Conan Doyle’s Dr Watson, pocketing his revolver before he walked the London streets, was real. The arming of the populace guaranteed rather than disturbed the peace.

That armed England existed within living memory; but it is now so alien to our expectations that it has become a foreign country. Our image of an armed society is conditioned instead by America: or by what we imagine we know about America. It is a skewed image, because (despite the Second Amendment) until recently in much of the US it has been illegal to bear arms outside the home or workplace; and therefore only people willing to defy the law have carried weapons.

In the past two decades the enactment of “right to carry” legislation in the majority of states, and the issue of permits for the carrying of concealed firearms to citizens of good repute, has brought a radical change. Opponents of the right to bear arms predicted that right to carry would cause blood to flow in the streets, but the reverse has been true: violent crime in America has plummeted.

There are exceptions: Virginia Tech, the site of the 2007 massacre of 32 people, was one local “gun-free zone” that forbade the bearing of arms even to those with a licence to carry.

In Britain we are not yet ready to recall the final liberty of the subject listed by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England as underpinning all others: “The right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” We would still not be ready to do so were the Mumbai massacre to happen in London tomorrow.

“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India,” Mahatma Gandhi said, “history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” The Mumbai massacre is a bitter postscript to Gandhi’s comment. D’Souza now laments his own helplessness in the face of the killers: “I only wish I had had a gun rather than a camera.”

Thank you for reading this blog.

Written by James Lagnese

December 8, 2008 at 6:33 am

A Man’s Property is His Castle: Should Castle Doctrine Laws Exist?

with 2 comments

A recent AP article discusses the increase in the number of states adopting Castle Doctrine laws and their effects. My take on the article is that it was biased against gun ownership and the use of justified deadly force. The argument from the soy swilling habitrail impresarios is that why would you kill someone for stealing a case of beer? My argument back to them is what is my life worth if someone will steal a case a beer and is willing to kill me in the process? I will assert that no one is under any obligation to retreat in defense of his life, liberty or property from anyone, including law enforcement and the government unless they have a legal warrant. I will go as far as to say eminent domain laws should be struck down as well, but that is another topic. A person’s life, liberty and property are theirs, and theirs alone, and subject to the rights of self-determination within the limits of their natural rights and the natural rights of others. Rock on Mr. Singh and props to the NRA.
Thank you for reading this blog. 

Written by James Lagnese

December 6, 2008 at 9:18 am

A Man’s Property is His Castle: Should Castle Doctrine Laws Exist?

leave a comment »

A recent AP article discusses the increase in the number of states adopting Castle Doctrine laws and their effects. My take on the article is that it was biased against gun ownership and the use of justified deadly force. The argument from the soy swilling habitrail impresarios is that why would you kill someone for stealing a case of beer? My argument back to them is what is my life worth if someone will steal a case a beer and is willing to kill me in the process? I will assert that no one is under any obligation to retreat in defense of his life, liberty or property from anyone, including law enforcement and the government unless they have a legal warrant. I will go as far as to say eminent domain laws should be struck down as well, but that is another topic. A person’s life, liberty and property are theirs, and theirs alone, and subject to the rights of self-determination within the limits of their natural rights and the natural rights of others. Rock on Mr. Singh and props to the NRA.
Thank you for reading this blog. 

Written by James Lagnese

December 6, 2008 at 9:18 am