Today I came across the article linked below, not dated but relatively recent.  It is excellent, and highly recommended.


Here are a couple of little excerpts, to entice you to go read the entire article.

"What many citizens and legislators do not understand is that the federal government has no right to prevent any law-abiding citizen from owning or possessing ANY firearm. The Constitution and its history is unequivocally clear on this! "


and

" No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”  Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #78." 

See the entire article here:
http://www.krisannehall.com/index.php/blog/143-obamas-new-gun-ban-list-a-the-2nd-amendment

"I just don't like guns," she said.  This was in response to a comment I made about a rifle match I had participated in last week.

But what does this comment actually MEAN?  

"I just don't like fireplace pokers."   "I just don't like hammers."  "I just don't like cars."  "I just don't like bathtubs."  

None of these sentences make any sense whatsoever, and a person who made those statements would receive, at the very least, blank looks of astonishment.   Yet each of the named items is responsible, each year, for far more accidental and intentional deaths -- both in raw numbers and in per-capita numbers -- than firearms.  

The misconception -- a result of a LONG campaign to impugn firearms -- runs so deep we don't even see it any longer.  A gun is a piece of metal, or metal-and-plastic, with NO WILL OF ITS OWN.  

Does she not like freedom?  --We owe our freedom to guns.  The muskets and rifles of the Revolutionary War; the rifles of the Civil War and the Spanish-American War; the Tommy Guns of World War I; the more sophisticated rifles of World War II, Korea, Vietnam... would she have preferred we remain subjects of King George?  Have been overrun by Hitler's troops?  Successfully invaded by Imperial Japan?  

Does she not like public safety?  --The police, National Guard, Border Patrol, and state militias (yes, they still exist), and other groups, are all armed.  Should a police officer have to try to arrest a drug dealer with only a stern countenance as his protection?  Don't be absurd!

No.  The actual indication and actual implication here is that firearms do not belong in the hands of law-abiding citizens.  This could NOT be more wrong.  History shows us, time and again, that when the methods of self-defense are ONLY in the hands of government agents, the inevitable result is INCREASED public violence and murder -- far too often at the hands of the government itself.  

Please see the video "Innocents Betrayed" by the organization Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership -- it is available free on YouTube.  Here is one link:  
_



Ownership of firearms is an essential support of our inherent and unalienable right to life:  what right can you have to your own life without the right, the power, and the duty to protect that life from those who would steal it from you with violence?

A dislike of "guns" -- as though they were independently-willed entities -- is just silly on the face of it.  

"War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory.  I love only that which they defend..."  (LOTR; The Two Towers)