(*VIDEO*) The NRA’s Colion Noir calls out the President

It’s no secret that I’ve been an NRA member for many years, even though I’m not exactly your typical gun enthusiast. I simply appreciate the idea of being able to defend both myself and my family.

Joining the NRA seemed like the natural thing to do, and I’ve always been happy with my decision.

But their ad campaign which floods my mailbox all year has always had room for improvement. It’s fine and all, but never exactly got me any more excited or motivated than I already was about the 2nd Amendment. And while Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre seems to be a nice man and a decent speaker, he also occasionally goes over the line rhetorically and ends up shooting himself in the foot (sorry, I couldn’t help myself…).

(VIDEO) Newt Gingrich to Piers Morgan: “Isn’t your REAL view that you would ban pistols, if you could?”

Another entry in the “discussion” on guns, with the Left’s mask publicly starting to slip. Regardless of which side you’re on, if you’re honest, both men showed the artifice of the Left’s argument. There is nothing in their proposed gun ban that, logically, can’t be extended to other guns.

Which, by the way, was my point from this post earlier.

Lefties want to ban ALL guns, & all this talk about “this” rifle or “that” magazine size is bull-puckies…

Senator Feinstein: “C’mon, you don’t really NEED these 150 types of guns, do ya’?”

Camel’s nose, meet tent:

The Daily Caller (Washington, DC): California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein staged a dramatic press conference Thursday on Capitol Hill with 10 weapons at her side and unveiled legislation instituting a government ban on more than 150 types of firearms, including rifles, pistols and shotguns.

Flanked by other anti-gun liberal lawmakers, including New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, Feinstein announced the introduction of the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.”

The legislation being pushed by Feinstein — who has long history of calling for gun bans — would prohibit the sale, transfer, importation and manufacture of certain firearms.

(CLICK IMAGE to ENLARGE)

Ronald Reagan on the gun debate… (part TWO)

Ronald Reagan believed not only in the greatness of our country, but also the supremacy of the individual. That explains his opposition to Socialism and Communism and, by definition, the loss of individual freedoms that such systems entail.

As a result, he was an unequivocal proponent of the 2nd Amendment. 

I mentioned this in an earlier post because that belief does not seem to be shared by our current Commander-in-Chief. This is also why I’m posting a column (below) written by Reagan waaaaay back in 1975, where he magnificently defended the virtue of our country’s historic stance on Gun Rights.

In light of President Obama’s recent power grab, it’s refreshing to read the thoughts of one of our country’s finest patriots on this subject.

The arguments against the 2nd Amendment are not new, just newly packaged. And the reasons they must be rejected are just as relevant today as they were 40 years ago, …or 240 years ago. 

–JTR

——

**Written by Ronald Reagan, from the September 1975 issue of ‘Guns & Ammo’ Magazine:

Ronald Reagan sums up the entire gun debate… (part ONE)

I have witnessed more discussion about guns and gun rights in the past month than I have cumulatively in my entire life. And yet the Left keeps yammering on about “we have to do SOMETHING”, as if even doing something extra-constitutional (at best) or highly destructive (at worst) is a better option than choosing NOT to.

If they habitually spill coffee on their carpeting, is their solution to burn down their house (“well, the carpeting was ruined anyway…”)??

It would be doing something, after all.

Much as was the case with Obamacare, the Left is again focusing on an end result of a problem, and not the problem itself. Illegal gun violence is the end result of people who choose to commit illegal violence; that’s it. Guns are not good or bad, any more than toaster ovens are good or bad.

You don’t have to be a ‘Gun Enthusiast’ to perceive the wisdom of the 2nd Amendment

FULL DISCLOSURE: I don’t regularly frequent gun shows. I’m not a gun “enthusiast”. I’m not even a hunter. The thought of going to the gun range doesn’t thrill me, either: I’d much prefer to watch a hockey game or read a book, quite honestly. 

Yet, I am a very strong, active and vocal supporter of our 2nd Amendment rights. Why? For the same reason I’m also a supporter of 1st Amendment rights, and 3rd, and…well, you get the idea.

We each have inalienable rights which are enshrined in our Constitution. These aren’t “Congressional Gifts”, or “Things which our betters have decided to lend to us until further notice”: they’re rights, and they’re ours.

Period.

As a result, I’ve become more defensive than ever of this particular Amendment in the face of a recent, full-out assault on it. There’s been a veritable cavalcade of Gun Control stories in the last few weeks, as the Left attempts to sway the public to their side.

Here’s just a few which we’ve seen this year:

An Informed Opinion on Gun Control

The attached post is by far the most complete treatment of the subject I’ve seen anywhere recently. Its author says that until his suggestion is honestly considered, any alleged “national conversation” isn’t a debate, it’s a “lecture”…and he’s 100% right.

So please, take a few minutes and read it. It will either (A) change your mind completely, (B) reinforce what you already believe, or (C) leave you tremendously more informed on this subject than you were 10 minutes ago.