Reuters: Americans with Guns Are Not All Drug Dealers or Urban Criminals

"The owners are not just urban criminals and drug dealers. There are hunters and home security advocates, and then there are the gun collectors."

--Reuters news story



Reuters published a story today about gun ownership in the USA. In the course of their meticulous research, they made an amazing discovery.

American gun owners are not all drug dealers and urban criminals.

Reuters then ran the story, YahooNews picked it up and the world NOW knows that there are a few gun-owning Americans who are not criminals--they're just gun nuts.

(Reuters) - An odd contraption in retired firefighter Alex Black's cluttered garage looks a bit like the hand winch at the top of a well. In fact, it is a machinegun.

Turning the shiny brass handle spat out a withering hail of bullets that transformed modern warfare.

"You march in to battle in straight lines against this, and nobody comes back," said Black, standing beside the hefty, carriage-mounted Colt Gatling Gun, which he restored over the course of a decade.

Reuters then reveals to the world that in a country of 300 million, there are 200 million firearms.

What's wrong with that?

Some Americans would maintain that that's not enough.

Black, who lives in this sleepy ranching town on the Arizona-Mexico border, is one of millions of gun collectors in the United States, where authorities estimate that there are more than 200 million firearms held in private hands in a country of 300 million people.

The American affinity for guns may puzzle foreigners who link high ownership rates and liberal gun ownership laws to the 84 gun deaths and 34 gun homicides that occur in the United States each day and wonder why gun control is not an issue in the U.S. presidential election.

It isn't an issue--yet.

But the next paragraph in the Reuters story is where the wire service unveils either its ignorance, political view or, most likely, both.

The owners are not just urban criminals and drug dealers. There are hunters and home security advocates, and then there are the gun collectors.

And, of course, if you own many guns you are a gun nut.

Reuters can't believe, apparently, that anyone would describe themselves that way.

Black's friend Lynn Kartchner is another self-described "gun nut" who lives in Douglas. He has a private arsenal of around 100 handguns, shotguns and rifles of all sorts which he uses for everything from hunting prairie dogs and rabbits to target shooting.

Europeans--Reuters is based in Europe--have a hard time understanding the American Second Amendment and why gun ownership is so important to many Americans.

Of course, Europeans who did understand the concept immigrated to the U.S. in years past.

The individual right to bear arms to protect home, family and neighbors and the notion of self-defense will get tested in the Supreme Court case set for next Monday, Heller v DC.

Reuters ends up the article with a quote from gun-owner Kartchner that they probably thought would chill the blood of most European readers.

But it likely elicited nodding of heads and smiles in most of the USA.

Kartchner has meticulously prepared the defense of his home.

He keeps a semi-automatic shotgun loaded with buck shot and heavy lead slugs behind the bedroom door, and a high-powered AR-15 assault rifle loaded in the next room.

"Guns are for projecting force," he says matter of factly, distinguishing firearms from other collectibles.

"Mao Zedong said 'power grows from the barrel of a gun,' and indeed it does."

The temptation is to file this story under "Dumbass".

Europeans are beginning to have to deal with a wide variety of problems on the continent that the political elites have been ignoring.

Criminal lawlessness, murders, honor killings, riots and other threats to the safety of individuals make a lot of Europeans wish, no doubt, that they had a right to bear arms.

The prediction is that the situation will get worse before it gets any better.

Perhaps then, Reuters will make an amazing discovery that there are some Europeans who own guns that are not criminals or drug dealers.


by Mondoreb
image: jerseynut
Source: For some in the US, Guns are a hobby, like any other
DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Montana to Secede: 35 Comments from Gun Owners if Gun Rights are Taken Away

35 Somewhat Random Comments on Montana and Secession from the US

Mostly from the AR-15 Forum



The story of the Supreme Court case, Heller v. D.C. and the Montana attorney general, Secretary of State and legislators warning the Supreme Court that if the Court finds that there is no individual right to bear arms in the Constitution, is going to get interesting, to say the least.

It appears that if the Supreme Court sides with the District of Columbia in disarming gun owners and invalidating the constitutional protections contained in the Second Amendment, they would be in direct opposition to what all 50 states have guaranteed their citizens in the 50 state consitutions: the right to bear arms and protect themselves.

This has sparked questions.

If the Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and it runs counter to what every single state has clearly worded as a guaranteed right in the state constitutions, written at the time those states freely joined the Union, what then?

At this point, we're not going to speculate until we do more research.

BUT that hasn't stopped others, particularly gun owners from weighing in on the consequences.

At the AR-15 Forums, a large forum for gun owners, the comments have been flying fast and furious since the news of the Montana legislators sending their warning to the Supreme Court that a finding of "collective right" would violate the compact the state signed with the US government when the state freely joined the Union.

Many of the comments there--and one in particular at DBKP--struck as as so entertaining, informative, funny or a combination of all 3, that we decided to round some up and make them into a story.

We now present a somewhat random sampling of 35 comments on the Montana story from the AR-15 forum.


"Arizona Constitution

Article 2 Section 26 - Bearing arms

Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."

--innocent bystander


"If AZ and NV go, Hoover Dam and all the power generation come with us... CA can build their own power plants."

--Gravity Tester


"I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me.”

--anjan9 (originally said by the Russian boat XO in Tom Clancy's 'The Hunt for Red October')


"The "minutemen" (or are you thinking of the Freemen?) weren't supported by the Montana state government or any allied state governments. Totally different situation. This would be like 1860/61 where people would be running back and forth choosing sides. Go read some history. There were loads of people who's families were torn apart by differences in opinion on allegiance to their state or to the imperial federal government. Lots of people from the north moved to the south specifically to join the confederate army, and vice versa.

If state governments are involved, the thing could very easily get very ugly very quickly. Montana just needs to hope some states will jump in on their side.

Edited to add: By the way... I wonder how many nukes Montana has? Just wondering.

I'm sick of the waffling pussy-ass politicians in most states. It's about time somebody _somewhere_ had the guts to call a spade a spade.

Those who think that's "crackpot" can just go on letting the shit go on in their own state and slowly become "subjects" instead of citizens. Too bad some people think standing up for what's right is "stoopid"."

--timb3


"Maybe Wyoming could secede as well? President Cheney!"

--steve in Washington


"So, if all of you ARFCOMers move to Montana after they secede, would the US respond militarily and the handful of armchair comandos have to face the US Army? That would suck balls."

--70satvert

One comment in particular was extremely pertinent to the discussion. GUN RIGHTS: STATE Constitutions & Gun Rights www.potowmack.org/196stcon.html Alabama Constitution art. I, § 26: -That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Alaska Constitution art. I, § 19: -A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Arizona Constitution art. 2, § 26: -The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. Arkansas Constitution art. II, § 5: -The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense. Colorado Constitution, art. II, § 13: -The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called to question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Connecticut Constitution, art. I, § 15: -Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Delaware Constitution, art. I, § 20: -A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. Florida Constitution, art. I, § 8: -The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state Constitution, art. shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law. Georgia Constitution, art. I, § I, para. VIII: -The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have the power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne. Hawaii Constitution, art. I, § 15: -A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Idaho Constitution, art. I, § 11: -The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying the weapons concealed on the person, nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, not prevent passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony. Illinois Constitution, art. I, § 22: -Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Indiana Constitution, art. I, § 32: -The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. Kansas, Bill of Rights § 4: -The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Kentucky Bill of Rights, § I, para. 7: -All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: . . . Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state, subject to power of the general assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. Louisiana Constitution, art. I, § 11: -The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. Maine Constitution, art. I, § 16: -Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned. Massachusetts Constitution, art., Declaration of Rights, pt. I, art XVII: -The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence [sic]. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. Michigan Constitution, art. I, § 6: -Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. Mississippi Constitution, art. 3, § 12: -The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of this home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. Missouri Constitution, art. I, § 23: -That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Montana Constitution, art. II, § 12: -The right of any person to keep and bear arms in defense on his own home, person, and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Nebraska Constitution, art. I, § 1: -All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are. . .the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such right shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. Nevada Constitution, art. 1, § II, para. 1: -Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes. New Hampshire Constitution, art. part 1, art. 2-a: -All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property, and the state. New Mexico Constitution, art. II, § 6: -No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. North Carolina Constitution, art. I, § 30: -A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and government by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statues against that practice. North Dakota Constitution, art. I, § 1: -All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are. . .to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed. Ohio Constitution, art. I, § 4: -The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Oklahoma Constitution, art 2, § 26: -The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislation from regulating the carrying of weapons. Oregon Constitution, art. I, § 27: -The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Pennsylvania Constitution, art. I, § 21: -The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Rhode Island Constitution, art. I, § 22: -The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. South Carolina Constitution, art. I, § 20: -A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be government by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law. South Dakota Constitution, art. VI, § 24: -The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied. Tennessee Constitution, art. I, § 26: -That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense Constitution, art.; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with the view to prevent crime. Texas Constitution, art. I, § 23: -Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. Utah Constitution, art. I, § 6: -The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the State, as well as for the other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. Vermont Constitution ch. I, art. 16: -That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State-and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not be kept up; and that the military should be kept under the strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Virginia Constitution, art. I, § 13: -That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Washington Constitution, art. I, § 24: -The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, by nothing in the section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. West Virginia Constitution, art. III, § 22: -A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use. Wyoming Constitution, art. I, § 24: -The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied. --kissfan

"Texas can, Texas has it in the State constitution " The right to succeed""

--point target, on the illegality of states seceding from the union

"Please cite which clause. I've read the Texas Constitution and cannot seem to find it. In fact, Article I, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution seems to state just the opposite:

Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self government, unimpaired to all the States.

Perpetuity means forever, in case you were not sure."

--PAEBR332



"My reading of the Statehood contract, if it was anulled, is that it would simply revert Montana to a US Territory, eliminating all Federal tax revenues from the state. That would be perfectly legal, if the contract is held as valid. As such, Federal revenue or "tax" collecting agencies such as the IRS, BATFE, and Social Security administration would not be welcome any longer. Of course that also means MT would not get Federal monies for Highways, schools, law enforcement etc anymore. It would not become a separate country, but would have much greater leeway in governing itself. It would become the "US Territory of Montana". JMHO."

--_dr


"Let's join our Montana brethren! Uphold the constition!"

--gdblair


"I pity all you nay sayers who would rather live as slaves than die defending your rights. So what of MT would be obliterated if they seceded? We would die fighting for our rights. As long as we didn't kill innocent civilians left and right we would be on the level of the early American revolutionaries."

--bodacious2182

"I make damn good chicken wings. I can open up a chicken wing joint. We will have to concentrate on getting nukes, a professional football team, and a quality first rate beer. You have to have at least two of these to call yourself a country."

--colklink, on Montana seceding.


"I still think North Idaho, Eastern Washington, and Montana need to form their own state."

--florg


"Thing I never understood is, can't states enact a Constitutional amendment on their own? *dig dig dig* Yes they can."

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

"So why don't they? And I'm not thinking about this because of gun rights, but all the other crap the federal gov does, like threatening to withhold use federal tax revenue to coerse the state to comply with their (congress') will."

--NimmerMehr


"Seriously guys, if you want to move up to Montana, I will help you do the legwork. I have been advocating moving out of socialist states. Yes the pay is lower, yes it gets F00king cold but you know what, I like having my liberty and freedom more than I like money."

"Starting to hit the local talk radio stations here in MT. Overwhelmingly positive. Only a few Judas Goats fighting for socialism. Amazing how it hasn't hit the national news."

--Elcope

"Well OKLAHOMA is SAFE
Section II-26: Bearing arms - Carrying weapons.
The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his
home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when
thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but
nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from
regulating the carrying of weapons."

--fister


"Montana rocks!!!! I could see some states following Montana. Maybe Indiana, doubtful."

--plucas


"It would be the safest place on earth. Oh, and 100% zombie free."

--Silent Type


"Justice Ginsberg responded immediately after waking up and hearing the news.
"Kill all white Christian males, their wives and any Indians that still think they are allowed to hunt. Send the children to re-education camps. White kids will serve as helpers. And we can send the brown people up there. Is that bitch O'Connor around to complain?"

She then fell back to fall asleep re-reading the NYT article on her appointment."

--Pat, comment on DBKP story, "Montana to Secede: Montana Legislators Warn Supreme Court Not to Violate Compact over gun Rights"


"Those politicians are Barry Goldwater Conservatives. You cannot find any of those in the Northeast. You can still find some of them in the South."

--C-4, in response to the comment, "Montana legislators have a set of big ones. It's about time politicians somewhere, anywhere stood up for individual rights being taken away."

"the thoughts of the Montana Militia battling the US would be so fucked. I would think that the soldiers would know right from wrong and lay down thier arms and release Montana to its Destiny. I am all for smaller govt. I think states should have more power than they do. the FED GVT is definitely on my short list."

--Gary_P


"So thirty other states are pushing for the individual right interpretation? Nice. I wonder if any are going to step up and go as far as Montana has?"

--Swindle1984


"I don't know, but I hope Alabama joins the new confederacy. If not, I'm moving to Montana. I am SO glad the folks out in that state have shown that there are still some people in this country who love and support the original intent of the constitution and bill of rights. FINALLY, they have proven to me that I was wrong. I thought nobody in this country had the balls to stand up for what's right anymore, but it looks like MONTANA still stands for what's right. Good on 'em for it!!!"

--timb3


"Damn. And here I never thought Id move outa New England again. It will be interesting to see what transpires after Heller is decided."

--ultramagbrion


"Meh...I'm not too big on moving to Montana. I think I'll stick around down here in AZ. Maybe I can run some interference or mail care packages to my comrades in arms to the north?"

--mpMoody


"Montana, the Dakota's, Wyoming, Nevada, Idaho, Kansas, then of course Kentucky with West Virginia, maybe Tennessee, eventually Georgia, Florida. Fuck the Liberals would be shitting themselves."

--RetroRevolver77




"Western Canada might well join us. A lot of them are as sick of Ottawa as we are of Washington D.C."

--jnojr


"yes. Ottawa keeps stealing cash and running them into the ground over their oil sands. Ottawa gives nothing in return. They're a parasite. I think this is looking pretty good for us if shit goes south with Heller. There has been a lot of talk about secession from Western Canada for a while now."

--Ale


"Interesting. Wouldn't the federal government effectively crush any attempt at secession? And a friend pointed out to me: isn't this sedition?"

--103


"It is in no way sedition. They are stating that if the contract is violated, they will take appropriate moral and legal action."

--RockHard13F


"Dang for Utah..Sec. 3. [Utah inseparable from the Union.] The State of Utah is an inseparable part of the Federal Union and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

But we also have it.
Article I, Section 6. [Right to bear arms.]
The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.

Edit to add newer version of our right to bear arms. Old version said nothing about an individual right."

--RckClimber

"Wow! Montana has more balls than any other state in the Union! I believe that I would try to move there if it did secede.

I wonder if China and Russia would recognize Montana's independence? I would think it would be highly, highly likely they would. One or more states withdrawing from the Union would be the biggest loss of face for the USA since the Civil War. If the USA tried to take back Montana by force, I would imagine that China and Russia would try their best to supply arms and aid to Montana (too bad Montana doesn't have any coast line)... I hope all you guys in Montana like AKs and RPGs!

Unfortunately, there would be no way that Montana alone could defeat the USA in open conflict. The only trump card is if Montana could retain functional control of any remaining nuclear silos."

--Shrike37


"If the SC really does make a "collective rights" interpretation, and Montana secedes, I'll mail my stripes to the President. He can keep them."

--STG77


"Indiana BOR: Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."

--BlackDog714


"Does MT have an Ammunition Supply Point? Not much advantage in having M1 tanks if the ammunition for them is stored at the tank range in Gowan Field, Idaho.

The other problem is that once the unit returns to the US, they get raped. This happened to us: All our M-4s and PVS-14s immediately got stripped from us upon our return, and sent to a deploying unit."

--Manic Moran

"Samuel Adams said something like what you just said back in the 1770's when the nay sayers (then known as loyalists) were crying "You can't do this - it'll never work! Britain is the greatest military power on earth! You're crazy!!!"

His comment: "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen"."

--timb3

There you have it: a sampling of what gun enthusiasts, at least at the AR-15 site, have to say about the upcoming Supreme Court case of Heller v. D.C.

Are they right?

Are they wrong?

More importantly, are they entertaining?

What do you think?

by Mondoreb
images:
* myfortressofsolitude
* codeodor
Sources:
* AR-15 Forums
* Montana to Secede: Montana Legislators Warn Supreme Court Not to Violate Compact over gun Rights



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

John McCain and the Second Amendment: Where Does He Stand?

A Mixed Bag...


...But not as bad as Clinton or Obama

"He is really hard to get a fix on with gun rights."

John McCain and the Second Amendment: how does he stack up?

When we tackled the question, we have to confess, we didn't know. We assumed that McCain's record on Second Amendment issues would be the same as the rest of his record: more conservative than most Democrats, but not an advocate for the gun owner.

And at the conclusion of reading McCain and gun control articles by various Second Amendment groups and gun owners' rights websites, that's the evaluation that remains.

After reviewing all the information on John McCain and his record on Second Amendment issues, we have to agree with gun rights website, Front Sight's, appraisal.

"He is really hard to get a fix on with gun rights."

Some groups hold McCain's feet to the fire whenever he teams up with Democrats on any gun control legislation.

That's fair.

Government never takes away rights in one fell swoop: it is almost always incrementally, over a period of time that citizens lose their rights.

And government, especially the U.S. federal government, is especially jealous of the power it gets. Once it gets power, it almost never ever (the 21st Amendment being the only exception we can think of) gives it back.

A quick survey of what's been said of the Republican front-runner on gun rights from around the web.

The Buckeye Firearms Association:

As if there wasn't already plenty of evidence that Senator John McCain is the wrong choice for pro-gun Republicans in the Presidential primary, the Columbus Dispatch has added one more item to the list:

The specter of Mike DeWine as U.S. Attorney General.

BFA then cites a story from the Columbus Dispatch titled, "DeWine Could have a Shot in a McCain Cabinet". The Buckeyes weren't too fond of DeWine, describing him as "an anti-gun candidate sporting a Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly Handgun Control Inc.) endorsement, [who] proved himself out-of-touch with Ohio voters on the Second Amendment, [and] was drummed out of office just over 1 year ago."

The Ohio report then lists a little bit of background about Mike DeWine and his attitude toward Americans and firearms.

In 2006, Human Events Online named DeWine among the Top 10 anti-gun U.S. Senators. And shortly before his defeat, DeWine took a position in opposition to legislation which barred gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers or importers from frivolous lawsuits designed to put them out of business. He consistently cast his votes on the side of the most rabid anti-gun Democrats in the Senate. And now he wants you to cast your vote for Senator John McCain.

Approximately 1/2 million people have hunting and/ or concealed handgun licenses in Ohio. According to the Minneapolis StarTribune's Dennis Anderson, Ohio gun owners made up 27 percent of the total vote in Ohio in the year 2000.

And they were none too happy with Mike DeWine, McCain's possible Attorney General.

Another gun website was unhappy at McCain in 2001: www.gunowners.org. It gave the Arizona Senator "Two Thumbs Down" for his appearance in a trailer attached to "Pearl Harbor", then showing in theaters nationwide.

Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona has appeared onscreen in many theaters, peddling a dangerous and very explosive propaganda -- thanks to an anti-gun group based out of Washington, D.C., which is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to run the political ad as a trailer in theaters this spring.

Urging parents to lock up their guns at home, Sen. McCain says "we owe it to our children to be responsible by keeping our guns locked up." This might sound "responsible" at first blush, until one realizes this one-size-fits-all approach can be deadly.

The reason? People don't know exactly when they will wake up and find themselves under attack. Like the Japanese zeros, criminals do not phone ahead and tell their victims to prepare for an assault.

Locking up one's guns might sound to some like the "responsible" thing to do. But if, God forbid, you should have to use your gun in an emergency, you can be sure of one thing: the thug in your home will not have a trigger lock on his gun.

Click on image to enlarge McCain warning label

In 2002, McCain sponsored legislation with Joseph Liberman(CN) to crack down on private sales at gun shows. According to a NewsMax story:

The gun-grabbing senators are now threatening to insert their bill (S.890), banning private sales at gun shows unless all gun buyers undergo background checks, as an amendment to other bills, according to Gun Owners of America (GOA).

Americans for Gun Safety(AGS)--(Ed. note: a gun control group]--has already claimed there was a link between terrorism and gun shows. No such link was ever demonstrated. It was all immersed in deception used to exploit the 9-11 tragedy. Americans paid no heed to this nonsense and instead rushed to buy firearms for self and family protection.

Gun owners should be concerned. As GOA declared in a press release: "Even more ominous, the McCain bill would threaten the very existence of gun shows. S. 890 would impose a five-year jail sentence on any gun show organizer if a single attendee of the show were not notified of his obligations under the Brady law. Obviously, if this bill were passed, an organization would be foolish to even sponsor a gun show."

The gun site, Front Sight, is more charitable about McCain's gun record: it calls it "mixed".

It has an excellent summary of John McCain's statements, votes and record on almost every gun control and 2nd Amendment issue that has come before the Senate during McCain's tenure there.

Front Sight's summary on McCain:

John McCain suffers from “senator’s disease” as a presidential candidate: as a long-time U.S. Senator, he has the most documented track record on the issues of all the top echelon candidates for 2008. Living up to his reputation as a maverick and a free thinker, McCain has not toed the gun rights party line. His record is profoundly mixed. Sometimes he has been with us; sometimes he has been very much against us. At times he has advocated positions such as mandatory gun locks and background checks at gun shows and then voted against the legislation when it finally came to a vote. Also he has voted against particular issues and then later advocated them in public statements. He is really hard to get a fix on with gun rights.

For a complete breakdown on McCain's record on guns, visit the Front Sight article, "John McCain on Gun Control".

In conclusion, we'd have to say that John McCain is more conservative on this issue than on many others. Whether McCain is a conservative, as McCain, his backers, the New York Times and other Mainstream Media outlets insist, is problematic.

On many issues, the Arizona Senator and the Senators from Illinois (Barack Obama) and New York (Hillary Clinton) have virtually identical records or stands.

We think he's definitely better on this issue than the two Democrats running for president.

However, that's a decision that each voter, particularly Second Amendment enthusiasts, will have to make.

John McCain and gun control.

What do you think?

by Mondoreb
hat tip: pat
images:
* joebluhm
* Bob McCarty
Sources:
* John McCain on Gun Control
* Gun Shows and Gun Control
* Another sign John McCain is no friend of Gun Owners
* DeWine could have a shot in McCain cabinet
* Two Thumbs Down for John McCain's Gun Control Ad



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.