Why?  Because the NRA is okay with negotiating away free speech.

I am a member of both organizations, but I will be thinking long and hard before renewing my NRA membership when it is due.

Hopefully, before then, the NRA will realize that it represents its members, not the organization itself. If the NRA is willing to make deals with an anti-First Amendment Congress in order to maintain itself as an institution, who is to say they won’t do the same for the Second Amendment?

Unlike the NRA, GOA is pro-Constitution, not merely pro-gun. So, if you are a member of the NRA, consider joining GOA as well, and perhaps letting your NRA membership lapse if they don’t clean up their act.

“For years I would tell news people about the fact that every single multiple victim public shooting in the US involving more than three people killed took place in one of these gun-free zones.”

Every time I see a “no guns allowed” sign, I think of other really cool ideas for posted slogans, like perhaps “no home alarms allowed” at the entrance to a housing tract or maybe “locked doors prohibited” in a public parking lot. Better yet, how about one of those nice “KICK ME” signs on your back.

It is only common sense that banning the carrying of guns in any given area means that only criminals will carry guns there — and assuming they can read, they can do so with the confidence that there probably won’t be anyone there capable of stopping them.

Here’s an easy mental excersize: put yourself in the shoes of a burgler, driving down the street, trying to decide which house to break in to.  One house has a car in the driveway with a bumper sticker that says “Gun Control Means Using Both Hands.”  The next house has a car in the driveway that says “There is no room for guns in a civil society.”  Which house do you break in to?

If people having guns with them is such a big problem, when was the last time you heard of a “crazed gunman” going on a rampage at a gun show?

• The former “Assault Weapons” ban did not lower violent crime, and when it expired, violent crime did not increase.
• There is no such thing as an “Assault Weapon.”  It is a figment of a politician’s imagination; a term invented to squelch debate on a subject. Most of the guns banned by the former law were not functionally different from “hunting weapons.” Also, ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds are illegal under the ban. Somehow, according to politicians, having 11 bullets in your hand gun to defend yourself is considered “too much,” but 10 is okay. (Arbitrary and illogical.)

But this has all been said before. Left wingers have an irrational fear of firearms, and now they are in a position of power to implement policy that appeals to their base. It doesn’t matter that the policy is emotional and infringes on the Constitutional rights of Americans.

So here’s the “funny” part, if this can ever be considered “funny.”

Holder (the Obama administration mouthpeice for infringment of Constitutional liberties) said:

“I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.”

So, get this straight: Our president wants our Second Amendment rights infringed and one of the rationales is that it will help Mexico — a country where gun laws are doing nothing to stem rampant crime and corruption. Got that?

On a related note, I’m reading John Lott’s book Straight Shooting. A nice easy read, it’s a collection of a bunch of articles he’s written over the last few years on gun control topics.

Oklahoma tied for “last place” scoring a whopping 2 out of 100.

This only goes to show that there is always room for improvement.

Hopefully in 2010, OK will get a nice fat goose-egg.

So today we had a “duh” ruling. This is so obvious that one has to wonder when the four dissenting judges are going to be impeached by Congress for blatantly denying Constitutional rights.

What should worry people who care about the Constitution is that this was a 5-4 ruling. That means that there was actually a “swing vote” over such an obvious and clear right protected by the Bill of Rights. That means that it would only take one Constitutionalist judge being replaced by a liberal to erase this obvious, clear right from existence.

I won’t bore people with more punditry — it’s all been said. I’m glad that the Supreme Court has affirmed an obvious fact, and struck down an obviously unconstitutional law. I’ll be happy about that and shut up now.

We’ve all heard the cries of hypocrisy: You can’t be Christian and against gun control; you can’t be pro-life and pro-gun ownership; vengeance is God’s, so why do you need a gun?, etc.

Let us examine, in particular, the charge that being prepared for self-defense is vengeance.

The conversation goes something like this:

Gun Grabber: “Guns kill people! We need more gun control laws!”

Gun Owner: “People kill people. Gun control laws do nothing to stop criminals from committing crimes and just make it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves. Saying we need more gun control laws to keep people from being murdered is like saying we need to ban silverware so people won’t get fat.”

Gun Grabber (knowing he has no logical argument): “You hypocrite. You’re a Christian, and the Bible says Vengeance is God’s, so what right do you have to own a gun?”

We already know that gun laws don’t prevent gun crime. It was illegal for a student to carry a weapon on the Virginia Tech campus, and so the only student with a gun was the one shooting everyone in sight. Short of snapping magical fingers and disappearing all firearms, no law imaginable can prevent guns from being used by criminals. But we know all this already, and it’s all been completely documented.

We also know that as a matter of United States law, the right to own guns is recognized by the Constitution. All the hemming and hawing one can conjure up doesn’t change the fact that the very foundational document of our government says “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.” Some people try to argue that militia means government military, but it doesn’t, and the very wording of the amendment places the right of arms ownership with the people and not the state.

But now, what of the Christian?  Can a Christian accept these facts and own guns without hypocrisy?

What is Vengeance?

The Bible says:

“Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” -Romans 12:19

There can be no doubt that the Bible clearly directs the Christian not to take vengeance into his own hands. Vengeance is taken out by God himself, and according to 1st Peter 2:14, he does this through the institution of government. But is self-defense vengeance?

For an answer to this, we do not go to the gun-grabbing liberal who despises individual liberty and sees personal defense as an affront to the nanny-state. To see if the divine operation of vengeance is equated with self-defense, we need merely read more Scripture.

For example, if someone breaks into your home and you kill him while he is committing his crime, is that vengeance?

“If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.” -Exodus 22:2

Clearly, the answer is no: self-defense is not vengeance. But what if you wait a while, and go kill him after you found out what he did? Conveniently for us, the very next verse answers that:

“If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.” -Exodus 22:3

These two verses lay out quite clearly the difference between self-defense and vengeance. In the first case, the thief was killed while committing his crime, and there is no fault in the man who killed him. But if he waits until it is over (the sun be risen), it would be vengeance, because at that point the imminency is passed and the thief must be dealt with under the law.

So we see quite plainly that acting in self-defense is not taking vengeance.

“Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” -Luke 22:36

“…I’d prefer to say that the default position is a terrible enervating passivity. Murderous misfit loners are mercifully rare. But this awful corrosive passivity is far more pervasive, and, unlike the psycho killer, is an existential threat to a functioning society.”

Wanted: A culture of self-defense (Michelle Malkin)

1. Imagine if we had to look at a map like that to find out where we could exercise our FIRST amendment rights.

2. It should be as difficult to register to vote as it is to legally carry a concealed firearm. If you can not be trusted with your Second Amendment rights, you can not be trusted to help decide who gets to make laws.

Suppose that one year ago, house bill 1572 were not squashed before it could get a floor vote:

[State quashed bill allowing handguns on campuses]

Clearly, squashing a bill reaffirming students’ Second Amendment rights didn’t make Virginia Tech “safer.”

Imagine if those students had their First Amendment rights infringed in college. The ACLU would have been there in a heartbeat. Where are those students’ civil rights now?

The attack on the Second Amendment rights of responsible United States citizens hasn’t just disarmed law abiding citizens; it has also had the effect of making them dependent upon government agents for their defense. And that’s the tragedy in the atrocity: that a single student could rampage for over two hours without being stopped by his peers.

A few things though: “Home schooling isn’t just being done by a bunch of people with guns in Idaho.” Hey now. What’s wrong with a bunch of people with guns in Idaho? “Home schooling is for highly motivated kids who want to learn and don’t need the daily accountability.” Sure, some kids don’t need “daily accountability.” But homeschooling is also for kids with parents who take an active interest in their development, whether or not they need “daily accountability.”