Sunday, October 23 , 2016, 2:03 am | Overcast 55º

  • Follow Noozhawk on LinkedIn
  • Follow Noozhawk on Pinterest
  • Follow Noozhawk on YouTube

Daniel Petry: We Must Protect Americans’ Right to Bear Arms

At no other time has there been a stronger justification for the Second Amendment

A well-regulated militia ...

So begins the historic statement of 27 words that fuels the titanic battle that rages between the proponents of freedom and the forces of collectivism.

Daniel Petry
Daniel Petry

As I started to write this piece, I realized that during the past 230 years, words and definitions have mutated into something that would be unrecognizable to our founding fathers. Brilliant though they were, they could not predict how future generations would define certain words and concepts. Where we use word de jure slogans, the framers wrote in terms of underlying human experience.

If James Madison had lived today and realized that nefarious elements in this country were challenging the right of Americans to bear arms, he probably would have written something like, “All citizens have the right to own semi-automatic guns, rifles and ammunition — period.” But he didn’t, because that is not how the framers thought — or wrote. Remember that when you’re reading the historic words that provide the foundation of this great country. 

Defenders of our right to bear arms need to understand the rationale behind the framers’ reasoning. Otherwise, they will leave the door open to those who wish to limit freedom and those ideological bullies who have the same gun-grabbing objectives, as did Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong.

You’ll run into the argument that the right to bear arms only existed because a well-regulated militia was necessary to the defense of the new nation, and that today this concept is antiquated because we now have a well-regulated militia called the National Guard. Wrong. That is the trap of historical misinterpretation.

Then there are those who say that “well-regulated” meant some form of gun control. I imagine that the framers would have tarred and feathered an insipid two-bit ideologue, bureaucrat or politician who thought that our Bill of Rights was in support of government regulation.

My brief effort here is to enlighten the hive mentality of progressives and give ammunition — pardon the pun — to those who fight for our fundamental rights. So here goes.

King George understood that an armed populace was to be feared — not only hard to control, but also able to fight the tyrannical application of brute force laws that restrained the freedom of the populace. Here was their problem: Frontiersmen settled the American wilderness. They were tough and armed, and the Brits realized that if they messed with an American they would most likely die. To assert their will on the people, they needed to remove this threat.

In hindsight, did the English really think they would succeed against hundreds of thousands of armed Americans? Not likely. But they came very close. If it weren’t for a few thousand “right-wing fanatics,” we would be a far different nation today. That fact has been purposefully lost through brazen educational censorship by factions that want Americans to be disarmed subjects of the collective.

Here’s a flash: More than 80 million U.S. families own a gun. That’s a scary figure when you’re an ideological zealot who wishes to disarm these very citizens. In fact, I imagine that if you’re a zealot, you experience the same fear the English did. That fear is well-deserved.

Remember folks, there is no truer statement than, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Right now, the government fears us — but it’s trying hard to change that.

I have a particular fondness for Thomas Jefferson. Let’s face it: The man knew how to turn a phrase, and he truly had a feel for the thousands of years of mankind’s experiments with government. When it comes to this aspect of our God-given freedoms, he said, “No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Remember that — tyranny in government. Not hunting, stopping crime, gun collections or fighting in a war — tyranny in government.

So, in the minds of the framers, what was the definition of a militia?

In the 1700s, a militia was all able-bodied men who owned a weapon. In today’s twisted world, the militia has been transformed into some evil right-wing boogieman that keeps progressives shivering inside their unarmed homes.

The British policy was to disarm American colonists by whatever means possible from entrapment, false promises of safekeeping and banning imports to seizure and ammunition control. Sound anything like what you’re hearing today coming from the lips of those who want you to prostrate yourself to the god of government?

Could any right be more applicable in today’s America? At no other time has there been a stronger justification for the Second Amendment.

We have a paranoid government that is growing in size and intrusive power almost by the second. It uses fear as a tool to slowly erase hundreds of years of hard-fought freedom. It threatens and attacks its own citizens, attempts to censor information, undertakes efforts to crush private enterprise and uses the Treasury as a slush fund to support these efforts. 

Understand this: There are opponents to our constitutional rights. Since they believe that there is no reason today for Americans to be armed, politicians such as Sen. Barbara Boxer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Charles Schumer and President Barack Obama would like nothing better than to have the power to force Americans to relinquish their freedom for the perceived security of the nanny-state.

In fact, if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (an amazing fact understanding his political philosophy) had not inserted into the current Senate version of the health-care bill his manager’s amendment — titled “Protecting Second Amendment Gun Rights,” that no program implemented under health reform may require disclosure or collection of any information relating to gun ownership — Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius could have mandated that gun ownership is an activity so dangerous that your insurance coverage needed to be suspended.

In conclusion, the Second Amendment is designed to protect your way of life. Destroy it, and it’s only a matter of time before all of your rights disappear. So when you hear someone telling you that guns need to be banned or restricted, what they’re really saying is that they believe in the power of government and consider individual freedom to be dangerous. Even 230 years later, our war for freedom rages on. I can only say never let up. For the day they lose their fear of us is the day you lose it all.

Oh, and for those of you wondering about those 27 words: “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.”

— Santa Barbara resident Daniel Petry is the CEO and founding partner of Petry Direct Inc., a 20-year-old management firm that specializes in content production and marketing management. He attended the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, class of 1976, and received a master’s degree in business administration from the University of Colorado.

Reader Comments

Noozhawk's intent is not to limit the discussion of our stories but to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and must be free of profanity and abusive language and attacks.

By posting on Noozhawk, you:

» Agree to be respectful. Noozhawk encourages intelligent and impassioned discussion and debate, but now has a zero-tolerance policy for those who cannot express their opinions in a civil manner.

» Agree not to use Noozhawk’s forums for personal attacks. This includes any sort of personal attack — including, but not limited to, the people in our stories, the journalists who create these stories, fellow readers who comment on our stories, or anyone else in our community.

» Agree not to post on Noozhawk any comments that can be construed as libelous, defamatory, obscene, profane, vulgar, harmful, threatening, tortious, harassing, abusive, hateful, sexist, racially or ethnically objectionable, or that are invasive of another’s privacy.

» Agree not to post in a manner than emulates, purports or pretends to be someone else. Under no circumstances are readers posting to Noozhawk to knowingly use the name or identity of another person, whether that is another reader on this site, a public figure, celebrity, elected official or fictitious character. This also means readers will not knowingly give out any personal information of other members of these forums.

» Agree not to solicit others. You agree you will not use Noozhawk’s forums to solicit and/or advertise for personal blogs and websites, without Noozhawk’s express written approval.

Noozhawk’s management and editors, in our sole discretion, retain the right to remove individual posts or to revoke the access privileges of anyone who we believe has violated any of these terms or any other term of this agreement; however, we are under no obligation to do so.

» on 01.17.10 @ 09:50 PM

Daniel, it is important to not incorrectly state someone’s position on the second amendment. You have done so when it comes to Obama. Please make a correction because he is for the 2nd Amemdment and it was part of his platform.

» on 01.17.10 @ 10:56 PM

“So begins the historic statement of 27 words that fuels the titanic battle that rages between the proponents of freedom and the forces of collectivism.”

This could give histrionics a bad name.

» on 01.18.10 @ 12:15 AM

local, are you kidding???  “Clear, open government, with the greatest transparency” was also part of his platform.  “Broadcast the health care debate on C-SPAN”.  Obama said whatever needed to be said to get elected.
With the coming cuts in state budgets, I feel a little safer knowing that I have protection in my own home to defend my family.

» on 01.18.10 @ 01:05 AM

Current federal law, last revised in 1956.

10 USC 311
Ҥ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”

As for Obama, his state, Illinois, infringes on the 2nd Amendment, as does California.  Hopefully when the Supreme Court rules favorably on McDonald vs. Chicago this spring we can get our rights back.  Obama’s idea of the 2nd Amendment is nowhere near that of the founders.  If we operated in a manner similar to the early republic, every home would have an M16 in it, and ammo.  Not unlike how Switzerland works right now - a machine gun in every citizen’s house.  And the 2nd Amendment should mean the same in Chicago as in Mobile as in DC as in Laramie.  What we have now is a disgrace - states feel free to ignore the Bill of Rights.

» on 01.18.10 @ 02:04 AM

local, I agree.  It IS important to not incorrectly state someone’s position on the 2A.  So let’s clarify that now.

The information is taken directly from his voting record.

~ Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
~ FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
~ Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
~ Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
~ 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
~ Says Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
~ Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
~ Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

» on 01.18.10 @ 04:31 AM

People may think because “It’s in the Constitution,” that the 2nd amendment will always be safeguarded. For these people, I suggest they read Senator Barbara Boxer’s autobiography “Strangers in The Senate.” On page 179, Boxer writes “Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island has introduced a bill to prohibit the manufacture, importation, exportation, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns or handgun ammunition; the only exception would be for law enforcement, military guards, or antique collectors and regulated handgun clubs. Senator Chafee calls his bill the ‘Public Health and Safety Act,’ and that’s an appropriate name.” For the next four pages she quotes Chafee after which Boxer writes “Waiting periods may well help and I support them, but I do believe that Senator Chafee’s approach will lead to a better America.” (funny how she doesn’t mention this on her website)

» on 01.18.10 @ 05:50 AM

A paradox in all of this is that well-meaning people on The Left will rightfully point to abuses by law enforcement yet don’t make the connection that an armed populace is what can keep human nature’s greedy way from taking over in law enforcement.

They speak of police abuse, yet when people argue for the 2nd Amendment they will label them “gun nuts”.

This country was implemented on the idea of freedom from government so it would make sense that we would have a “well-regulated” militia.  In other words, if the militia are the only ones with guns, then binding agendas could result in them being at odds with the general populace. 

There is also of course, the Virginia Tech massacre which if I’m not mistaken, happened while V-Tech was bragging about being a gun-free zone.

In short, we don’t live in a perfect world and while mantras of peace and love are nice things, sometimes women find themselves stalked by crazy ex-boyfriends or people find themselves being carjacked and if someone is coming after you there often isn’t enough time to make the 9-1-1 call much less expecting the cops to get there in time.

» on 01.18.10 @ 05:55 AM

“Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008) “

“Common-sense” and “sensible” are two terms I often hear from gun-control advocates.  The problem with these terms is that they do not in and of themselves tell us what changes are desired.

» on 01.18.10 @ 10:58 AM

The Militia Act of 1792 REQUIRED all adult male citizens to own a military grade weapon and ammunition.  That was the founder’s idea of common sense.  Today, the same party (aka the Democrats) that used their paramilitary wing ( the KKK) to disarm (and or kill) the people that disagreed with them (Blacks and Republicans) wants to disarm average law abiding American citizens.  They have succeeded in doing so in some states and localities, in direct contradiction to plainly worded text of the Constitution.  They obviously don’t trust Americans and want to accrue power to the government.  Time to repeal quite a number of “laws” which do nothing to prevent crime and have the purpose of turning citizens who own guns into criminals, merely because said citizens exercise their rights under the 2nd Amendment.

» on 01.18.10 @ 12:22 PM

RKV, thanks for the fact check on Obama. I appreciate you dealing in facts this time as opposed to our discussion on Haiti where you simply denied the facts. As you can see by what Obama has done he is not against the second amemdment. It is like saying he is against cars. No he is just for cars that obey gas mileage standards and travel obeying the rules.  Also, I am sure if M16s and semi-automatic weapons were available when our founding fathers wrote the legislation there would be a different outcome. I agree with all of the facts about Obama that were presented by RKV. That is exactly how I think the Second Amendment should be dealt with. In places like Britian where guns laws are restricted more than the U.S., deaths by guns and violent crimes are much lower. Most gun deaths are to the same person that owns the gun.  The NRA has taken this issue to an extreme where any oversight or regulation is an interference with the right to bear arms. This has resulted in lax policies and many owning guns that should not have. The Brady Law is an example of a sensible policy.

» on 01.18.10 @ 01:07 PM

You’ve got it wrong again.  You failed to answer why the Dominican Republic is on the same island as Haiti and does 7 time better economically, and you get it wrong on the 2nd Amendment again.  Apparently you can’t read either as it was another poster who came up with the list of specifics on Obama.  The Brady law you tout is unconstitutional on its face.  You state “Most gun deaths are to the same person that owns the gun.”  Since you are including suicides, it is clear to reasonable persons that other methods would be used.  Take Japan as an example, which has a higher suicide rate than the US, and has effectively no private firearms.  Correllation is not causality local.  As to the roots of violence in the US, I’d note that the US had higher violent crime rates than Britain did, even when both countries had effectively the same gun control laws - none (before the turn of the 20th Century).  Please note the significant increase in firearms ownership over the last 10 years, while the crime rate falls.  No correlation whatsoever, so you have NO POINT.  As per typical.

» on 01.18.10 @ 01:22 PM

Please, banning all semi-auto firearms and all firearms that hold or can hold more than 10 rounds from .22 cal. long rifle to shotguns, rifles, and hanguns - (effecting more than 3 out over every 5 guns owned in Illinois) - is “Supporting the Second Amendment.”  His support of such legislation in Illinois that would have made the vast majority of Illinois gun owners who own firearms criminals unless they turned in their guns is “Supporting the Second Amendment?”  His vote against a state law that prevented prosecution of individuals who use a firearm in lawful self-defense from being prosecuted if they had had said firearm in violation of a local ordinance, is “Supporting the Second Amendment?”  His support of DC’s and Chicago’s handgun bans, (which in DC’s case was found in violation of the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court in the Heller Case), is “Supporting the Second Amendment.  His sitting on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation - the gun control and ban advocacy group is “Supporting the Second Amendment?” Yeah, Obama is for the Second Amendment just like Ahmadinejad is for Isreal.

» on 01.18.10 @ 01:46 PM

Great article Dan! Some get it, some don’t. The point for those who don’t is that if citizens have arms government is held at bay. When citizens don’t have arms government becomes tyrannical.  It doesn’t matter how many idiots shoot themselves or steal guns to commit crimes, Local, the point is without a gun in YOUR hand you are at the mercy of the government you elected. With that gun, the government is at your mercy. All other considerations are secondary. It simply does not matter how awful things get between us it will be worse if government gets involved. This is the fundamental difference between the right and the left, the right believing in personal responsibility and the left abdicating that responsibility to other people, (authority).
Keep writing Dan, we are all learning a great deal, thanks again.

» on 01.18.10 @ 01:48 PM

Bill Clausen;

I give credit to Boxer for the title of her book “Strangers in the Senate”. Not only has she been the biggest ZERO recently elected to the U.S. Senate, she could just as easily have named her book “A Stranger in California”. It would have been a one page account of the very few things she has ever done for California. She has become an entrenched political hack and the ultimate career politician in Washingvton, who should have been booted out of office unceremoniously long ago. She is the poster child of why we probably need term limits in the U.S. Senate!

What the liberal left or so called “progressives” do not understand, is much of what was writtten in the Constitution has everlasting meaning and does not need modern day revisionism to twist those words to fit some latter day political agenda. Neither do those words, need “interpretation” of them by some liberal minded, guilt ridden judge, using the law as a hammer to forge social changes he or she thinks is appropriate or who were perhaps “brainwashed” into believing are needed by their party politics; the party that got them a seat on the bench.

Often these same myopic minded judges, using the mechanism of “legal interpretation”, promote that agenda through case law decisions.  Judges that were often unduly influenced early on by their equally liberal/progressive minded “college professors” charged with a mission to change the world to fit their own “liberal” views rather than teach their students about the whole world and it’s broadly faceted realities.!
“College professors” who see their role as tearing down everything good in America, in order to over-empahsize to their students everything bad or historically unjust that has occurred here to justify the radical changes they think are needed!

» on 01.18.10 @ 03:22 PM

If you go to the JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS website, you can see actual copies of totalitarian “gun control” laws in the original languages, and translations in English.

The idea of “sporting purposes” was lifted right out of the Nazi Gun Control law by the late Senator Tom Dodd, the father of Senator Chrissy “I got that mortgage with no favors attached” Dodd. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with sporting purposes. The reason for the Second Amendment is to protect the American people for the potential Hitlers we have right here in the USA.

Disarmed people are neither free nor safe - they become the criminals’ prey and the tyrants’ playthings. When the civilians are defenseless and their government goes bad, however, thousands and millions of innocents die.

» on 01.18.10 @ 03:47 PM

I’m always impressed by people who are so certain what the framers would have wanted for us in 2010. It’s one of the best ongoing examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect. (See or just read the Bertrand Russell quote there to get the gist.)

» on 01.18.10 @ 04:07 PM

DKEffect - snob, elitist, unoriginal, perenially angry.

» on 01.18.10 @ 05:03 PM

Sharon, the 2nd Amendment is where power meets trust.  Or as the Romans would have said - ‘Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”  Who watches the watchmen?  Americans want to trust their government, but know that human nature is such that there need to be safeguards.  The right to keep and bear arms written into our Constitution defends our soverign power over our employees - aka the government.  It’s not fashionable to teach kids about ” checks and balances” anymore.  Sadly. 

I like how one Democrat liberal put it ...“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.,” said former Democratic Vice-President (then Senator) Hubert Humphrey to Guns Magazine (“Know Your Lawmakers,” Guns Magazine, Feb. 1960).

God forbid we ever need to throw out a government by force again here in America, but the time certainly could come when we want to.  In that event, I want our employees to KNOW that we’ll kick their ass.  I don’t even want it close.  That way they won’t be tempted to do something stupid.  Its bad enough now when certain Washingtonians feel entitled to 40% of all we produce.  They believe they’ve got a million good reasons to turn us into serfs - by my lights all they’ve got are excuses.

» on 01.18.10 @ 05:12 PM

The Iraqi insurgents proved that an armed and determined population on its home territory can resist and even threaten a modern military.

It was true in Vietnam, it was true in the American Revolution.  That’s why totalitarians know, they must disarm the population or they will be overthrown.

And that’s why the leftists in the USA have waged a decades long battle to disarm us.

» on 01.18.10 @ 05:14 PM

What was this all about?

The Bush-Roberts Supreme Court has clearly ruled (for the first time in modern legal history) that ONLY the 2nd part of the Second Amendment is operative, and that no
one can modify that for any reason.

The administration has never indicated that they can or will ignore that ruling, no
matter what they may (privately) think of it.

If the NRA (and the munitions industries that bankroll it) are riding a crystal meth
high, we still are hearing laments for over a year now that “Obama will take away
our guns.”

What rubbish. Just like those (sad) “birther” people.

There are MORE guns on the streets of America than ever before.

More guns than in all other European nations (plus Canada), combined.

Most of the guns and ammo that augment the Mexican drug lords are coming from
LEGAL purchases in border states.

More Americans die from random, unprovoked gun violence each year than from the
next four highest “accident” categories, combined.

The guns and ammo that fueled the recent Ft. Hood massacre all came from LEGAL
purchases in Texas in the months before the massacre.

Yet Mr. Petry still does not feel safe about “freedom” to have guns and ammo in
America. Why not?

If Mr. Petry is truly concerned about the Second Amendment, why doesn’t he work
with Congress (and the fifty states) to fulfill the FIRST part of the 2nd Amendment?

Let all those who need or want firearms be required to be properly trained, and
serve in, National Guard or local Reserve units, as the Founders intended.

Petry, as a West Point grad, is already qualified, to the highest standards.

Why not assure that any and all others - barring extraordinary circumstances - who
want or need guns meet a similar standard of training, and public safety service?

» on 01.18.10 @ 06:04 PM

Sharon - all those things may be true as well, I won’t argue, but the Dunning-Kruger effect means something a bit different.  I encourage readers to follow the link and not just stop with Sharon’s brief description.

» on 01.18.10 @ 06:46 PM

Well San Roque, a more ignorant group on non sequiturs would would be hard to find.  You’re so wrong on so many levels, its hard to know where to start.  Let’s just make it simple - for simple minds like yours.  Repeal the 2nd Amendment if you want to do what you appear to want to.  Any other approach, like using the courts to amend the Constitution, is morally wrong, and even you know it if you’d think a minute.  Have the guts to do it the right way.  You know you’ll lose, so you change the subject.  Let’s try 10 day waiting periods on news and government licensing of newspapers, hmmm?  Tax newsprint and ink, and license the internet - otherwise people could be misled.  The government knows whats best, right?  If we had it your way in the 1770s, we’d still be a colony of England.

» on 01.18.10 @ 07:18 PM

Every word of Mr Petry’s article should be engraved on a stone slab and bolted beside the doors of every Federal building in America -especially courthouses! Our Founding Fathers knew precisely what evil lay in the hearts of politicians -such as our Axis of Evil: Obama; Reid; Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton. America will never be safe for law-abiding citizens as long as there is one Socialist Democrat in public office anywhere in America!

West Virginia

» on 01.18.10 @ 07:21 PM

Dunning-Kruger effect—Thanks for the link.  Russell quote is a treasure.

» on 01.18.10 @ 07:23 PM

local, you’re a liar just like Obama: he wants to confiscate everything capable of firing any sort of projectile! Get yourself some smarts: join NRA and then read!

» on 01.18.10 @ 07:32 PM

San Roque, most of the heavy arms used in Mexico do not come from the U.S. but from the world’s blackmarket and from the Mexican military. The entire country is corrupt—military, police, you name it. There are hundreds of thousands of guns in Mexico. The LAST place these guns are coming from are U.S gun shows—not in the quantity of guns needed by the Mexican drug cartels.

If the liberals want to keep the guns from going into Mexico they allege are all supposedly coming in from the U.S. then—build the fence on the border. You can’t have it both ways—both wide open borders and controlling the number guns smuggled into Mexico—just ain’t gonna happen, amigo.

» on 01.18.10 @ 07:55 PM

I didn’t think that the San Roque area was so detached from reality that you would be able to even try to submit something like your post.  You are completely off base on so many items.  Classic “slogan de jure” as Petry points out.  His piece seems to be about the base aspect of the 2nd amendment and you have managed to mangle a number of facts that need to be addressed.

“The administration has never indicated that they can or will ignore that ruling, no matter what they may (privately) think of it.”  By administration do you mean Obama specifically or his entire administration?  Either way there are so many instances, far more than can be counted, of his negative position and the anti-second amendment positions of those that surround him and those, of his party, that inhabit the Congress.

If the NRA (and the munitions industries that bankroll it) are riding a crystal meth high, we still are hearing laments for over a year now that “Obama will take away our guns.”  Good ‘ol American marketing for sure…but come on, admit it, you do want to disarm us don’t you?

“What rubbish. Just like those (sad) “birther” people.”  Pure deflection on your part.  And a poor attempt at that.

“There are MORE guns on the streets of America than ever before.”  Yeppers.  There are also more people in America today.  Duh.

“More guns than in all other European nations (plus Canada), combined.”  So what.  We are not Canadians or, god forbid, Europeans.  Our forefathers left Europe for a reason; your family should have been left behind.

“Most of the guns and ammo that augment the Mexican drug lords are coming from LEGAL purchases in border states.” Pure crap.

“More Americans die from random, unprovoked gun violence each year than from the next four highest “accident” categories, combined.”  Beyond the fact that Darwin is probably involved with this statement, put weapons training into our schools.  How many of those deaths were Boy Scouts?

“The guns and ammo that fueled the recent Ft. Hood massacre all came from LEGAL purchases in Texas in the months before the massacre.”  So what.  You’re kidding me right?  Thanks to Clinton all US Army posts are disarmed.  If those soldiers had been armed that islamic terrorist would have been cut down before one round had gone down range.

“Yet Mr. Petry still does not feel safe about “freedom” to have guns and ammo in America. Why not?”  Because there are people like you who are breathing.

“Let all those who need or want firearms be required to be properly trained, and serve in, National Guard or local Reserve units, as the Founders intended.”  I think he proved his point rather well…even if you want to ignore it.  But since you said it - The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.  NOT!

» on 01.18.10 @ 09:28 PM

Look when the constitution says A well regulated Mallitia being neccesary to a free state. they are talking about the people, not the national gaurd, back in the 1700s it was the common man that was the millitia just average joes, and that aplies today, it also states the right of the people to keep and bear arms, meaning we the people have the right to own firearms. so bassicaly not only do we have the right to have guns but we also serve as a millitia when needed.
loose are rights. the secount ammendment when you think about it,it is two rights in one, make some sence know.
  Remeber never stop fighting for the rights you all hold dear, because it is only when we stop will we loose it.  remember the Liberal partys do think you should have rights but only the rights they think soots you and not what are founders set up for us, but what they dont know is they will only get stabed in the back by the very type of governments they want.

» on 01.18.10 @ 09:37 PM

Misinformation and personal interpretation abound in this rant. No gun control organizations or supporters advocate taking guns away. An example of an armed populace exists in Mexico. When the government fears the people, there is anarchy. God-given freedoms? include the Commandment “Thou shalt not kill.” But in America, kill we do at a rate of 30,000 firearm deaths per year, every year. Eight children die each day from gun violence and five are wounded. The economic cost of gun violence in America, which is paid by taxpayers, is approximately $100 BILLION annually. If you choose to have a loaded and unlocked firearm in your home and you have children, there is a potential for tragedy. Armed, emotionally unstable people have been reported time and again as killing their entire family or fellow workers or classmates before committing suicide. For a different viewpoint, read “Guns,Democracy and the Insurrectionist Idea.”

» on 01.18.10 @ 10:11 PM

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” -Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Six things progressives love to hear:

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC’s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis’ high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

» on 01.18.10 @ 10:21 PM

If Madison were alive today he’d probably write something like “All citizens have the right to own any weapon (arm) and ammunition.” ... which, come to think of it, is what he wrote.  There was no restriction as to type of arm.  Knowing that the 2nd amendment was for the protection of the country from tyranny by the government and government military forces, the 2nd must protect the rights of citizens to have the same weapons as the military - whatever they are now, or will be.  Including, of course, machine guns.

This is precisely why the Militia Act of 1792 directed the citizens enrolled in the militia to have muskets.  Muskets were not as accurate as rifles, and so not as useful for sporting or taking game ... but they were much more quickly reloaded.

» on 01.18.10 @ 11:33 PM

LOCAL you had better look at Obamas history of voting on gun rights. There has not been an anti-gun bill he has not voted for including the most extreme of the extreme votes. Look at what Obama does not what he says. He is a gigantic liar. Don’t drink the “kool aid”.

» on 01.18.10 @ 11:33 PM

FYI, for those of you who understand that would-be dictators and tyrants won’t actually be stupid enough to say, “Yes, as a matter of fact, we WILL disarm the people”...check out

And hey, here’s one for you…
On average, firearms are used to save a life 150x more often than they are used to kill.  See?  I can make up “facts”, too.

» on 01.19.10 @ 12:23 AM

did you guys ever see that t-shirt that says “2nd amendment” and has a guy with a bear’s arms (ie hairy arms/paws/claws)? get it??? the right to “bear arms.” pretty funny. ok go back to the debate.

» on 01.19.10 @ 12:50 AM

Six more things progressives love to hear about guns:

Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

When confronted by violent criminals, you should “put up no defense - give them what they want, or run” (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don’t Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is “an accident waiting to happen” and gun makers’ advertisements aimed at women are “preying on their fears.”

Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

» on 01.19.10 @ 12:56 AM

The only people empowered by gun control laws are governments and criminals. And unfortunately sometimes one is the other. What happens when a rogue government wants to transform a nation?

History’s worst serial killers have been governments that turned predator against segments of their own populations. The inability of innocent victims to defend themselves against their own governments cost the lives of over 170 million of the world’s peoples in the 20th century alone.

Hitler was elected to power in January 1933. Because of gun control registration laws enacted 5 years earlier, Hitler already knew who owned the guns. Mass seizures of weapons would render the German people helpless. Hitler was to enact another gun control law in 1938. The very day after Kristallnacht, a Nazi-led night of lawlessness and murder against Jews, the Jews were forbidden by law to own a gun, a club, or any sharp-edged weapon. Rendered defenseless, and with census data and National ID Cards identifying who was Jewish, it was easy for the government to arrest the Jews and send them to concentration camps. Over 5 million Jews were slaughtered in these death camps. Many political opponents, pacifists, Slavs, Gypsies and others were also murdered during Hitler’s regime. Nearly 21 million people perished under Hitler because they had been rendered defenseless by gun control laws.

» on 01.19.10 @ 02:09 AM

I think the entire pro vs anti gun factions have evolved into a big circle jerk o’ lawyers intent on riding the gravy train forever…every step forward for gun rights seems to accompany two back in ca. The existing pro gun orgs seem similar in stature to gm mngmnt to me.  Maybe someday a new media savy coalition org will emerges with an entirely new marketing oriented approach and a broad. modernized appeal.

» on 01.19.10 @ 11:57 AM

It is amazing to me how scared all the pro gun people are. They have drank the NRA koolaid. It is not black and white. You can own guns but there needs to be reasonable restrictions. You can own a car but there are laws such as a speed limit. Just because there is action to find a happy coexistence does not mean that someone is going to take your guns away. This country always takes an issue and goes to extremes of good versus evil or there out to get me or my guns. Look at the prochoice versus anti-abortion issue or the environment versus business. The pattern is the same where we no longer can have a civil discussion because one side is completely right or wrong and there is no middle ground. There are more guns in America today than ever. No one is going to take your gun away. Let us all be reasonable here and not act like Charleton Heston.

» on 01.19.10 @ 12:54 PM

Following this logic thread to its natural conclusion, the United States will be the most safe and free country in the world when every man, woman, and child in America possesses an assault rifle.  What a perversion…..

» on 01.19.10 @ 01:07 PM

Good commentary here, but we must remember one important thing that few talk about. The architects of the constitution guaranteed legal gun ownership as a right. They did this to protect us FROM government.

There will always be bad people who do bad things with guns, but we should not imagine that extreme gun restriction will solve that problem. Reasonable restriction should include criminal background checks, but that will never stop criminals from acquiring guns.

So long as there is poverty, poor education, injustice and social inequity, crime will exist. Banning guns only guarantees that law-abiding citizens won’t have guns. Gun-ownership rights are essential for maintaining a balance of power between honest good citizens and the criminals on the streets, and are absolutely essential for defending against the criminals in government.

» on 01.19.10 @ 01:12 PM

Jackson do you even know what an assault rifle is?  Now don’t go rushing to the internet to look it up.  Be bold and answer without looking up a liberal definition.

» on 01.19.10 @ 01:17 PM

On October 16, 1991 at Luby’s Cafe in Killeen, Texas, gun control laws had deadly consequences for 23 people who were murdered by a lone gunman. A young doctor was helpless to protect her parents from being murdered when during the killing spree she remembered that her gun was in her car because it was illegal for her to carry it in her purse. Gun control laws also proved fatal on the morning of August 23, 2000 for the Carpenter children who lived in a rural community in California. Even though all five Carpenter children knew how to shoot, California law requires that guns be locked away from them. The children were left defenseless against an intruder armed with a pitchfork. The doors and windows had been barricaded and the phone lines cut. The intruder started stabbing 14- year- old Anna when 9-year old Ashley drew him away. He began stabbing Ashley who died while yelling at her older sisters to go. The girls thought of the gun, but they couldn’t get to it since it was locked away. The three oldest girls escaped and ran to beg a neighbor for his rifle. He said no because the government would take it away from him. Authorities were called and arrived five to ten minutes later. But it was too late for 9-year old Ashley who died from 138 pitchfork wounds and 7-year-old John William who died with 46 wounds.

When people accept being disarmed not only are they giving up their independence, but they become easy targets for criminals using even the simplest of weapons - a club, a pitchfork or even box-cutters. It’s amazing how we are still not hearing the truth about gun control even after the murders of 9/11. How can the world not be asking the right questions about a system that allows thousands of people to die because they were rendered defenseless against thugs carrying only box-cutters!

» on 01.19.10 @ 03:05 PM

Have you tried to buy ammunition?  Why is the government restricting the production of ammunition?  What good is the right to bear arms if you can’t get the ammunition?  Great way to get around it. You can bear the gun just can’t use it.

» on 01.19.10 @ 05:33 PM

Dear Neighbors,

Sorry some of you are so worked up about this. I’m not trying to provoke or anger
anyone. I truly just do not get it.

There are, today, more guns and ammo, per capita, available in every part of America than at any time in our history.

More than in any other country in the world, too.

There is no sign that there is any move by Congress, the White House, the Supreme
Court, to alter that, or weaken the Second Amendment, in any way.

Far from it.

The conservative Roberts Court last year greatly strengthened the 2nd clause of the Second Amendment - further in fact than any Supreme Court ever went before.

So where does this anger and concern come from, that the Second Amendment is
in danger, or that the people’s right to possess legal firearms is jeopardized?

It’s clear that Mr. Petry, and some very anxious, upset readers, think it may be. But
after reading his essay three times, and looking for actual facts behind his fears, I
still do not see it. Sorry.

» on 01.19.10 @ 07:24 PM

San Roque Resident - do you own a gun?

» on 01.19.10 @ 07:31 PM

SRR, any time you have a coalition of anti gun government types in power you should be very afraid. The ignorance of comments from those like Jackson is why. Many in this country, Local, have all the social awareness skills of a two year old playing on the freeway with a bag over their head. You never see it coming. The entire socialist movement has occurred over 7 decades, slowly but ever increasing, kind of like boiling a frog. So yes these little changes folks like you think we need to gun laws, have a cumulative impact over time. You may not notice but we historians do. At some point the push back starts and with every tweak of law, however insignificant at the time, needs to be stopped.
The logic behind gun control is false. The behavior that drives someone to violence does not stop with a gun ban. They will use a pitch fork or a baseball bat or maybe they use the biggest cause of death in our country, cars. It doesn’t matter. Philosophers the world over and throughout history have made the same observation, belief systems drive values and values drive behavior. Laws don’t make a bit of difference in the end, they only give you redress with the governing authorities. Banning guns only means the passive innocent are disarmed. The violent will find them and use them and as the statistics show, they use them most often where the deprived live. Think about this one, the most often chosen venue for crazy people to commit violence on innocent victims are the two venues with the highest degree of gun control, schools and the post office. Hmmmmm. Now go put that bag back over yer head and go play. I’m sure if you can’t see the criminal with the stolen hand gun he can’t hurt you.

» on 01.19.10 @ 10:35 PM

An50, I agree with San Roque Resident. There is no evidence that the Second Amendment is weakened or under attack anywhere. Gun ownership is at a record levle. So stop making up things. There is no boogy man going to take a way your guns. This step by step legislation that you refer to does not exist, except in your own mind those that create an issue where there is not.

Now can we move on to something more real because Daniel has raised an issue that does not exist. I own a gun or two or more and so do many others writing here. There has never been an issue. It is an individual decision and will not become banned.

» on 01.19.10 @ 10:51 PM

San Roque Resident - It’s kind of amazing isn’t it? A gripping narrative and media stimulation is all it takes to make people lose contact with reality.  The Communist Party was able to keep half the world in their hands with a hair-raising narrative about predatory capitalism.  Then fundamentalists come along with a story about the west trying to stamp out Islam and much of the islamic world was gulled. 

But Americans are too sophisticated to fall for this sort of thing, right?  Not on your life - the NRA, backed up by fox News, comes up with a scary yarn about guns about to be seized and a good chunk of America (or at least a good chunk of Noozhawk readers) can’t do a reality check.

» on 01.20.10 @ 12:14 AM

DKEffect - so you open carry too?

» on 01.20.10 @ 08:57 AM

“There is no boogy man going to take a way your guns.”

Yes, there is.  In fact Democrat politicians DO want to take away our guns.

Can I buy a semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip that accepts a magazine in California now?  No I can’t do that legally.  In fact the government forced me to register the one I had and now won’t let me buy any more.  So yeah, the politicians in California have taken away my 18 year old son’s ability to buy a similar semi-auto, and I can’t give him mine.  Legally that is.  This same semi-auto rifle is widely sold in the rest of the US - just not here in California. 

If I can quote what our Senator Dianne Feinstein said on CBS “60 Minutes”: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban picking up every one of them—Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in—I would have done it.” 

So, yes, Democrat politicians have taken away privately owned guns and continue to want to take away guns from the public.  And if they don’t talk about their plans now, their track record is clear - they cannot be trusted on this issue.

Our state legislature wanted to limit the amount of ammunition that I can buy every month - ever hear of AB962?  50 rounds a month?  That is crazy, I can shoot that much at the range in an hour.  Just another law DESIGNED to make criminals out of gun owners. 

So, it’s clear as day that some politicians DO want to take away American’s guns.

» on 01.20.10 @ 11:52 AM

RKV, based on your angry responses maybe it is a good thing that you cannot buy a semi-automatic weapon? I and others believe that just because guns and ammunition are restricted that does not mean that the Second Amendment is in trouble of being overturned. Each state has the right to make certain restrictions but the Second Amendment will always be adhered to. Everyday in America there are examples of individuals that have gone crazy with a gun and taken many innocent lives. Obviously, what we are doing now is not as effective as it could be. I believe background checks, purchases not allowed until someone is 21 years old and restrictions on purchasing of certain weapons are all reasonable. You have your opinion and I have mine. So we agree to disagree but I have to say when I go into a place like Big 5 and see the process of purchasing and some of the characters that purchase a weapon it is someone scary.

» on 01.20.10 @ 12:49 PM

Local, you say you own weapons. You registered those with the authorities like a good little citizen. So when that same government comes to your door to take them away, “for your own good”, what will you say then? “Oh I’m a good little national socialist, so here’s my gun.” The point of Dan’s article was to wake up people to the true intent of the second amendment, to bear arms against a tyrannical government. To that you missed the point. To DKE follow your own advice, go look in the mirror for that DKE.

» on 01.20.10 @ 02:05 PM

As I read the comments that followed Mr. Petry’s op ed; I can only think that those anti-gun advocates that do not understand the Second Amendment have the same head in the sand mindset as their masters.  They have totally misread the will of the people and are so blinded by ideology that they will blindly follow each other off the same cliff.  These are the same people that the Founders would have known to be Loyalists.

» on 01.20.10 @ 05:21 PM

“I and others believe that just because guns and ammunition are restricted that does not mean that the Second Amendment is in trouble of being overturned. “
The Constitution says that the government shall not restrict, local.  “shall not be infringed” to be specific.  I guess it’s OK for people to be guilty until proven innocent by your logic.  Or lack thereof to be more precise.

» on 01.20.10 @ 09:27 PM

This is California, Daniel.  Minority views have no rights here.  Look what happened to gay marriage.

» on 01.21.10 @ 02:47 PM

For those of you crowing about how no one is actively trying to take away your rights; I only need to point out the most recent fact that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced the Obama Administration would be working with the UN to pass a new Small Arms Treaty.

People like Croniger, Local, San Roque Resident, Toni Wellen are either weak minded dupes or blatant liars.  I suspect they are the latter.

Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against terrorism, insurgency, and international crime syndicates, the UN Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, global gun control scheme.

If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN Small Arms Treaty will FORCE national governments to:

Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally.  CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL unauthorized civilian firearms - all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course.  BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons.  Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.

» on 01.21.10 @ 03:05 PM

What our founding fathers and others, had to say about gun control and freedom…

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”—Thomas Jefferson Papers (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

“They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania..

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others.” -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-1785).

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.

“The Constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” -Thomas Jefferson.

“(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” -James Madison.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

“Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion…in private self defense…” -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).

“...arms…discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them.” -Thomas Paine.

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p322.

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” -Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778).

“To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them…” -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun. -Patrick Henry.

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” -Patrick Henry

“To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…” -Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788).

“The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

“...the people have a right to keep and bear arms.” -Patrick Henry and George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185.

“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” -James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” -Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.

“The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…” -Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code.

“The people are nor to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” -Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646.

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” -Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government…”-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28).

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” -Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, under the pseudonym “A Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1989

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States…Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America.” -gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” -Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).

“If a man hasn’t discovered something that he will die for, he isn’t fit to live.” -Martin Luther King Jr., June 23, 1963. Speech in Detroit.

Statements of The Enemies of Liberty:

“Government begins at the end of the gun barrel.” - Chairman Mao

“One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ... Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms.”—V.I. Lenin.

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”—Joseph Stalin.

“We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns.” - Jose Cerada, (White House official who specializes in gun control policy), The Los Angeles Times

“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ...” Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A)

Back in 2001, before the “shall issue” law went into effect in Michigan, the hoplophobes were predicting “blood in the streets” as permit holders shot it out over parking space disputes and road-ragers running amok with “automatic pistols”, gunning down children and anyone else who stood in their way. Yeah, it sounds goofy now, but these people were serious.

Jennifer Granholm, who was Michigan’s Attorney-General at the time, was particularly apoplectic. Remember, she was born in Canada, raised in California and educated at Berkeley. Not exactly a hotbed of American values and conservatism! Several years later, after nothing happened to refuel the fear, Jenny said, Bless her heart, “I was wrong”, (about the shall-issue law). She owned up and eventually our state legislators loosened up the law and expanded where concealed pistols could be lawfully carried.

By the way, Obama is VERY anti-gun and has never seen a gun-control law he didn’t like. Check out H.R. 45, a registration scheme currently in Congress, introduced by an Obama friend, Representative Bobby Rush,a Democrat from Chicago. He’s an ex-convict who couldn’t own a gun anyway, even if they were legal to own in Chicago. Remember history, people! Every time gun registration has occurred in a population, confiscation has followed. Every time! Chew on that for a while. I leave you with a quote from one of my heroes. 
“The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it”
- Albert Einstein

Class dismissed!

» on 01.22.10 @ 05:40 PM

Michiganswampdog - my goodness, you must spend a lot of your time reading.  Even Stalin’s stuff, for heaven’s sakes, nobody else has time to read that kind of thing anymore.  I’m really impressed!

» on 01.22.10 @ 07:40 PM

Especially since Spanglish is California’s language of record.

» on 01.23.10 @ 12:04 PM

What’s next for these Americans wanting to arm themselves and fight the “oppression” of our own government? Will it be joining a militia, and riding around in the back of a pickup truck carrying Kalashnikov rifles? Seems to me these Americans have a lot in common with their Afghan and Pakistani brothers, with the promise of an equally bleak future for all of us.

» on 01.24.10 @ 12:25 AM

Jefferson - typical inane blather.  Now boy, as for your inept attempts at the standard infantile Marxist sarcasm…you need to work on it a bit.  As for pick up trucks…I seem to remember that someone who drives an American made GM pickup truck just kicked your boys ass and sent your party running for cover.

» on 01.24.10 @ 11:12 AM

New Citizen: At least we know which side you were pulling for in the movie “Avatar.”

» on 01.24.10 @ 03:38 PM

Yep.  The aliens.  They had the numbers, the weapons and the land. The invaders wanted their weapons and looked at them just like Wilson and his WW 1 arrest warrants or FDR and his internment camps, or Adolf and his camps of love.  Kinda made ya wish for the good old days eh Smith?

» on 01.24.10 @ 09:29 PM

New Citizen - “standard infantile Marxist sarcasm”  I get confused: does this mean that all infantile Marxists are sarcastic or that all sarcastic people are infantile Marxists?  Or maybe they amount to the same thing?  These logic issues can get really baffling.

» on 01.25.10 @ 12:53 AM

NudeCitizen - it just means that you were taught in what used to be one of the most advanced education systems in the world…wait…I forgot, you are now at the level of most third world countries thanks to people like you.  So, let’s make that, “one of the education systems that trains its children to be qualified to clean my home”. 

How more clear can “standard infantile Marxist sarcasm” be?

I grew up in a world that you have no comprehension of.  A world were people like you were the bureaucrats that came into my father’s house and took people away to be re-educated.  That is what this beautiful Constitution was designed to stop.  And it is so frustrating to people like you because it works so well.

» on 01.25.10 @ 02:42 AM

New Citizen - “I grew up in a world that you have no comprehension of.” 

I think we can all agree on that one.  But you’re not in that world now.  Wake up and look around you; none of your fears have anything to do with the country in which you now live.  Try to get a grip and see what’s really out there.  It takes real work to find a Marxist around anymore.  (Though infantile and sarcastic people are not in short supply; Petry’s articles seem to bring them out in droves.)

» on 01.25.10 @ 10:29 AM

NudeCitizen - you’re promoting that world. You just don’t know it. As for finding a Marxist; you just need to look in a mirror.

» on 01.31.10 @ 01:08 PM

There were alot of stupid comments along the way here and I am going to take the time to refute some of them.

1- That the gun ban in England works. “A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.”

That’s an old article from BBC news, I’ve seen newer information but don’t feel like finding it at the moment.  If you take the time to do actual research instead of just repeating the BS you hear from Brady and the VPC you wouldn’t make yourself sound so stupid.

2-No one is trying to take away our guns.  Complete and utter BS!  Have you seen HR 45?  Have you seen what is involved in the UN Small arms treaty?  Both of those would effectively destroy the 2nd amendment.  And who’s supporting them to the hilt?  Your favorite socialist Barrack Obama!  All you had to do is pull your head out of the sand (or out of your ass) and listen to him on the during 2008.  He never once mentioned what the 2nd amendment was about when he said he supported it, he always mentioned hunting and sport shooting, which isn’t the point of it.

3-US guns are flooding mexico.  More BS designed to fuel a gun ban in the US.

Take the time to read that.  It explains that the 90% BS being spouted by BHO and his ilk is not the full story.  That number refers to the number of guns SUBMITTED for tracing, not the total number of guns recovered in Mexico.  Also, have you seen some of the pictures in the news articles dealing with this issue?  The ones i’ve seen included weapons such as a belt fed BAR, hand grenades, RPG’s, LAW’s (which stands for light anti-tank weapon), and REAL AK’s (meaning full auto).  None of these can be obtained easily in the US and most of them are illegal here as well.  The only things US citizens can buy along these lines are full auto’s but they are extremely hard to buy legally and also cost upwards $10,000 with some going as high as 60 or 70k.

I’m done fact checking the sheep for one day.  I’ll leave you with a little bit of advice though.  I don’t care what you believe, my only issue is that you need to do some research and make sure your positions are based upon FACT and not on feelings or on the latest press release from organizations using BS to further their political agenda.  If you want to argue using facts then I welcome it and at the end if I can’t convince you otherwise then we agree to disagree and go on.  If you argue using DNC, Brady, or VPC BS then be ready for a sharp rebuke.  As you can tell from the link I posted I intentionaly avoided using stuff from Fox, NRA, etc because you won’t believe it any more than i’d believe the partisan hacks from your side.

» on 01.31.10 @ 05:19 PM

The right to protect ones self or others who are threatened is the oldest right in the world. Self-defense, at one time, went unchallenged. Until now, that is. The United Nations, the most politically-correct entity in the universe, has news for us “subjects” and it ain’t good. Have you ever heard of IANSA? How about Rebecca Peters? All “Sheepdogs” know about IANSA. The “sheep” had better know about IANSA, too, because sheep is what IANSA is all about.  What is IANSA?

The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) is the global movement against gun violence - a network of 800 civil society organisations working in 120 countries to stop the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons (SALW). IANSA seeks to make people safer from gun violence by securing stronger regulation on guns in society and better controls on arms exports. It represents the voices of civil society on the international stage, for example in the UN process on small arms, and draws on the practical experience of its members to campaign for policies that will protect human security.

IANSA is composed of a wide range of organisations concerned with small arms, including policy development organisations, national gun control groups, women’s groups, research institutes, aid agencies, faith groups, survivors, human rights and community action organisations.

What does IANSA do?

IANSA aims to reduce small arms violence by:

raising awareness among policymakers, the public and the media about the global threat to human rights and human security caused by small arms
promoting civil society efforts to prevent arms proliferation and armed violence through policy development, public education and research
fostering collaborative advocacy efforts, and providing a forum for NGOs to share experiences and build skills
facilitating civil society participation in global and regional processes
promoting the voices of survivors, in solidarity with them and their families
How does IANSA work?

IANSA is a participant-led network with highly diverse participants in different fields of work around the world. The structure, based on national, sub-regional and regional networks of civil society organisations, ensures that the network is driven by the needs and priorities of its participants. Global meetings of members are held at least once a year to discuss progress and strategy, and regional meetings more frequently.

What has IANSA achieved so far?

Since 1998, IANSA has helped broaden and strengthen international small arms advocacy and research efforts, as well as devise remedies to counter gun proliferation through the creation of five regional NGO networks covering more than 30 nations. In the Central American regional network, organisations are pushing for the harmonisation of national firearm laws. In the Mercosur network in South America, NGOs are coordinating transnational public education and advocacy campaigns. And while the West African network is preparing a strategic plan for the region, the European network is developing an arms export control campaign. In addition, regional networks are emerging in South Asia, South East Asia, the South Pacific, East Africa, Eastern Europe and the Andean nations of South America.

Since its formation, IANSA has been instrumental in raising and unifying the voices of NGOs involved in the United Nations Small Arms Programme of Action. At major conferences held in 2001, 2003, 2005 and 2006, IANSA brought governments into serious, meaningful dialogue with the NGO sector over small arms, ensuring that civil society remains effectively engaged in this important programme. IANSA is now recognised by the UN as an important global NGO network with valuable expertise to contribute to discussions at all levels.

As a founding member of the joint Control Arms Campaign with Oxfam and Amnesty International, IANSA has also been heavily involved in pushing for a global arms trade treaty. Control Arms amassed significant public support for the campaign that culminated in the Million Faces petition, where individuals submitted their portraits in expressing their support for the treaty. A major political victory was achieved in 2006 when 153 of the world’s governments voted to start work on an arms trade treaty in 2007.

What’s ahead for IANSA?

Policy advocacy. Advocating for improved national gun laws, regional agreements and international initiatives to better control the proliferation and reduce the misuse of small arms will be a central focus for IANSA’s activities. IANSA will continue to play a leadership role in the UN Small Arms Conference process and will remain actively engaged in its Control Arms campaign during the development process of a UN Arms Trade Treaty.

Communications. IANSA will raise and maintain the profile of the small arms crisis by assisting in the development of advocacy and public education campaigns regionally and internationally. IANSA will engage and coordinate media outreach efforts to promote participant goals to wider audiences.

Civil society engagement. IANSA will continue to expand and strengthen the network of organisations committed to stopping small arms proliferation. Existing networks will be strengthened and better engaged to ensure that regional focuses are targeted, effective and inclusive. National, regional and sub-regional networks will be established to address their specific concerns. Thematic networks built around key issues, including the Women’s Network and the Youth Network, will be further developed to increase international expertise and cooperation in joint efforts for change.

How is IANSA funded?

IANSA’s work has been supported by funders including the Governments of UK, Belgium, Sweden and Norway, as well as the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Compton Foundation, Ploughshares Fund, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Open Society Institute, Samuel Rubin Foundation and Christian Aid.

For more information about IANSA, please e-mail the Secretariat at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

O.K. Sheeple, I mean people, if you check out dear, dear Rebecca Peters, you will see that besides being rabidly anti-gun and on a mission, she single-handedly disarmed Australian gun owners. She is also a lapdog of George Soros, a big-time authoritarian gazillionaire type who believes that the average person is too stupid to properly care for him/herself and the nanny-state will deliver a gun-free utopia, where everyone will love everyone else. The only thing that’s in the way is that pesky Second Amendment and the NRA. Rebecca Peters says we have to , “....find another hobby.” Well Rebecca, you little, small-minded snit, are not going to tell this American Veteran what I should have for a hobby. I have a news flash for IANSA…. “From my cold, dead hands…...”! Have a wonderful day!

Class dismissed!

» on 02.04.10 @ 11:58 AM

The question is: What exactly do you plan to do with your gun to protect your freedom? Is this merely symbolic or do you actually plan to shoot at police officers, military personnel and politicians in order to defend your “right” to shoot at police officers, military personnel and politicians?

I, for one, do not want to live in a country where everyone is carrying a weapon. As time passes, we SHOULD be becoming more civilized. It is truly a barbaric concept that anything be settled with a gun. The gun lobby has hijacked the word “Freedom” and somehow tied it to your right to own a gun. You aren’t free unless you are packin heat and your freedom will be taken away unless you get a gun fast!! This is the mentality of the bully. I can’t solve a problem intellectually so I will solve it with force. So in other words, Mr. Petry, you feel you have no power without your gun? Sounds to me like your problem… not mine. I have rights too !!!  I have the right to go to the grocery store and not have to worry about being shot by the housewife next door who is pissed cuz I took her parking spot. Someday public safety and common sense WILL wins over paranoia and this caveman gun fetish !!!! Unfortunately, not in our life time. Barbarians unite !

» on 02.04.10 @ 04:42 PM

The question is: What exactly do you plan to do with your gun to protect your freedom? Is this merely symbolic or do you actually plan to shoot at police officers, military personnel and politicians in order to defend your “right” to shoot at police officers, military personnel and politicians?

I, for one, do not want to live in a country where everyone is carrying a weapon. As time passes, we SHOULD be becoming more civilized. It is truly a barbaric concept that anything be settled with a gun. The gun lobby has hijacked the word “Freedom” and somehow tied it to your right to own a gun. You aren’t free unless you are packin heat and your freedom will be taken away unless you get a gun fast!! This is the mentality of the bully. I can’t solve a problem intellectually so I will solve it with force. So in other words, Mr. Petry, you feel you have no power without your gun? Sounds to me like your problem… not mine. I have rights too !!!  I have the right to go to the grocery store and not have to worry about being shot by the housewife next door who is pissed cuz I took her parking spot. Someday public safety and common sense WILL wins over paranoia and this caveman gun fetish !!!! Unfortunately, not in our life time. Barbarians unite !

» on 02.05.10 @ 02:41 PM

What I plan to do with my gun is to defend myself and my family in any lethal encounters we find ourselves in.  I have carried a gun with me EVERYWHERE I go for the last 5 years.  I’ve pulled my gun on people twice during that time and didn’t have to fire a shot.  If you don’t want to own a gun (or carry a gun) then that’s up to you and I can’t fault you for it.  Not everyone has the mindset required for it and since you consider those of us who would rather shoot a criminal than die at their hands Barbarians and cavemen you don’t have that mindset.  All I can say is that I hope you are never put in a position where you have to rely upon LEO’s for your life because their response time is usually about 30 minutes too slow to save anyone. 

As for freedom:  The bill of rights were NOT granted by the Constitution, the first 10 amendments are guarentee’s to rights that pre-dated the founding of this country.  Looking at it that way if this government says I can’t own a gun then yes, I am no longer free.  Another thing to think about, if the government gets rid of the second amendment is any of the other 9 going to be around much longer?  The 2nd is our enforcement policy to protect ALL our other rights.  That is the real issue here.  Government can’t force us into their socialist BS while we are able to resist.  That is why self defense and gun rights have been under attack for decades.

» on 02.06.10 @ 05:38 PM

Remember, sheeple! When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!

» on 02.08.10 @ 04:25 PM

There are many, many incidents that happen in the USA each year when law-abiding Americans are able to protect or defend themselves from violent criminals. These days, states cannot afford to lock up criminals, so they plea bargain the crime down to something that doesn’t cost the state an arm and a leg. Tethers and home-jailing will become more common-place and probation and parole agents are cheaper than 24/7/365 confinement. As retired law-enforcement, I know what some individuals are capable of. I advise everyone to buy a quality gun and get top quality training and appropriate ammunition for your gun. Contrary to what the brady campaign says, you don’t have to submit to a rapist or get your brains beat out for the entertainment of sociopaths. Paste this link into your browser and check out the numerous instances of law-abiding citizens defending, protecting and preserving lives with firearms.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >