Be sure you are signed up for JPFO's periodical Email Alerts.
JOIN JPFO TODAY
Get a very aggressive defense of your rights.
Click on the above.
Help us avoid errors.
Should you prefer a full page of JPFO’s main links, then
Read these classic
rebuttals to "Gun Control"
Picture, Oleg Volk
To hear most proponents of "gun control" tell it, those of us who warn that the anti-gun agenda's endpoint is a total ban of private gun ownership are "paranoid" to believe such a thing. President Obama has himself made this claim:
Of course Obama's idea of "sensible, responsible legislation" includes an outright ban of the most popular centerfire rifles in the country, mandating the inclusion of "smart gun" technology (just don't even get me started) in semi-automatic handguns, banning private sales of guns, etc. Beyond that, though, every new restrictive gun law enacted becomes the beachhead from which the next infringement on that which shall not be infringed is launched--the proverbial "slippery slope" in action.
For some gun ban zealots, though, the slippery slope simply cannot be counted upon to act quickly enough--they want their gun bans now. Gerald Ensley, writing for the Tallahassee Democrat, is just such a zealot, as he makes clear in his "Stop the insanity: Ban guns":
We've seen this before, and I actually believe that these people deserve more respect than those who work to hide their goal of an outright, total gun ban behind a facade of seeking "moderate," "modest" restrictions on gun ownership. At least the open gun ban jihadists don't try to hide their searing hatred of our means to defend our lives and liberty.
Of course when I say that they "deserve more respect" than the more covert enemies of an armed and free American citizenry, I am not exactly setting the bar very high. To openly advocate prohibiting effective fighting arms for anyone outside law enforcement or the military is still to advocate the horrors of a "government monopoly on force"--and what that enables.
Ensley also makes mustering any respect for him difficult by expressing his apparent belief that the fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms can be rescinded simply by "repealing or amending the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." As the Supreme Court stated in its 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision (citing the more than century and a quarter old United States v. Cruikshank ruling), that right would not disappear even with the Second Amendment's removal from the Constitution:
But Ensley saved his "best" for last:
One cannot help but wonder about Ensley's blustering "we'll take them." Does he propose to personally take part in the confiscations, or would his participation be limited to cheerleading from the sidelines. Personally, I strongly suspect the latter.
But I dearly hope I'm wrong. Molon labe, Ensley.
A former paratrooper, Kurt Hofmann was paralyzed in a car accident in 2002. The helplessness inherent to confinement to a wheelchair prompted him to explore armed self-defense, only to discover that Illinois denies that right, inspiring him to become active in gun rights advocacy. He also writes the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column. Kurt Hofmann Archive.