He published an op-ed on RealClearPolitics called "Guns Save Lives" and the anti's are ripping him up in the Comments section.
http://comments.realclearpolitics.com/read/1/24578.html
http://comments.realclearpolitics.com/read/1/24578.html
You know...
The one thing all you utopian, pink sky, anti-gun, depend on the government for protection, hope the cops show up in time when the poop hits the fan, and wanna take all the guns away forget is:
You don't have any guns - but we do - all 80,000,000 of us. If even 1% of us decide to say no you're gonna have one heck of a fight on your hands and odds are you guys will not, cannot win.
Agreed. Every citizen should have the right to bear a muzzle loading long rifle, or single shot sidearm, sword or long knife. These are the weapons to which the framers were referring.
Well, then, sir, I'm going to have to insist that you be silent here, upon the electric web!
You may speaketh over there on ye olde soape boxe, or printeth thy tracte with many turns of the hande cranked presse, and passeth out thine bills upon the streetes.
ijit.
Most of what I was going to say has been covered by others already, so I will be brief.
The ultimate intent of the 2nd amendment was to give the populace teeth against a tyrannical government. It is listed in the Bill of Rights, which exists to outline rights of the people. It does NOT give people rights, it merely lists a few of the rights which it would be considered most egregious for the government to trample. There was a lot of fierce debate over whether the Bill of Rights should even be included in the Constitution because the powers not previously outlined in the document were reserved to the states, and the people.
Given the actual intent of the framers, the populace should be able to own whatever type of firearms will enable them to keep those in power in Washington from getting too big for their britches. Those who attempt to turn the debate to foolishness using reductio ad absurdum while referencing nuclear weapons are trying mighty hard to further an agenda that they know holds no legal or moral basis.
Those who reference Australia and the UK as gun free utopias clearly haven't examined any violent crime statistics after the passage of such bans. Now they are looking at banning knives. Are they going to eventually wrap whole nations in foam rubber, and toss all rocks over 1/5 kilogram into the oceans?
Self defense is a human right. Advocating a ban on firearms of any kind is feel-good nonsense that will have no beneficial effect on crime rates.
I failed in my goal to be brief, and I am going to stop now before I ramble on beyond what anyone is willing to read.